Random

    Politics

    Home Politics

    Elon Musk’s Drug Use Sparked Campaign Trail Concerns

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    An explosive new report from The New York Times revealed the disturbing frequency billionaire Elon Musk consumed illicit drugs while on the presidential campaign trail with Donald Trump.

    The article comes as Musk is exiting the Trump administration after a whirlwind several months in which he led efforts to cut down on the government’s size.

    Musk told people he was using ketamine so often that it was impacting his bladder, along with utilizing psychedelic mushrooms and taking ecstasy, the Times reported. The Times reporting included interviews with dozens of individuals Musk worked with or knew, along with obtaining private messages. 

    The tech executive, who was advising the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) panel on federal government cost-cutting measures, would travel every day with a box containing 20 pills, the Times said, citing individuals who have seen the box and the photo of it. Some of the pills were marked as Adderall. 

    Musk has publicly spoken about his mental health before, describing “great highs, terrible lows and unrelenting stress.” The tech billionaire has also refused the use of traditional antidepressants and said he was prescribed ketamine for depression, taking it “about every two weeks.”

    According to the Times, some of Musk’s friends have severed ties with the tech billionaire over his public behavior.

    “Elon has pushed the boundaries of his bad behavior more and more,” Philip Low, a neuroscientist, told The Times. 

    The Times also reports Musk received advance warning of employee drug tests at SpaceX, despite the company’s obligations as a federal contractor to maintain a drug-free workplace.

    The Wall Street Journal reported in January 2024 that Musk has used cocaine, LSD, psychedelic mushrooms and ecstasy at private parties, prompting concerns from board members and executives at SpaceX and Tesla.

    “After that one puff with Rogan, I agreed, at NASA’s request, to do 3 years of random drug testing,” Musk wrote in a social media post shortly after that article was published. “Not even trace quantities were found of any drugs or alcohol. @WSJ is not fit to line a parrot cage for bird.” 

    The report comes after Musk announced Wednesday that he would be departing the White House as his 130-day period as a special government employee expires.

    Judge Criticizes DOJ and FBI as He Rejects Argument to Keep Affidavit Under Wraps

    By
    admin
    -
    5
    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]

    A federal judge criticized the FBI and DOJ as he rejected a DOJ argument to keep the affidavit for the search warrant at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago under wraps.

    U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said the DOJ did not meet the government’s required burden of proof to keep the document sealed, The Daily Caller reports.

    Reinhart wrote in his ruling that the government had a to show if it has a compelling governmental interest and the denial of access is “narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” 

    The DOJ argued that the unsealing “would jeopardize the integrity of its ongoing criminal investigation,” and that there were privacy concerns with unsealing it.

    In response, unsealing the document would “unsealing the Affidavit would promote public understanding of historically significant events. This factor weighs in favor of disclosure.”

    However, Reinhart has the government did show a compelling interest in not unsealing the whole affidavit but that there was an alternative between unsealing the whole thing or not unsealing anything.

    Reinhart has given the agency until August 25th to propose the redactions of the document they would like.

    [READ NEXT: Trump Makes Fun of Failed CNN Host and Liz Cheney]

    What’s The Latest Hold Up To A House GOP Impeachment Inquiry Into Biden? McCarthy Explains.

    By
    admin
    -
    9
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    In an exclusive interview with Breitbart, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says he won’t open an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden without a floor vote. “If we move forward,” it “would occur through a vote” on the House floor, the speaker explained to Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle.

    McCarthy’s announcement confirms that moving forward with an impeachment inquiry will require 218 yes votes.

    Appearing on Charlie Kirk’s podcast, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said that she believed the House Republican Conference has the votes to initiate formal proceedings against Biden.

    Fox News has more:

    “To open an impeachment inquiry is a serious matter, and House Republicans would not take it lightly or use it for political purposes. The American people deserve to be heard on this matter through their elected representatives,” McCarthy told Breitbart News in a statement. “That’s why, if we move forward with an impeachment inquiry, it would occur through a vote on the floor of the People’s House and not through a declaration by one person.”

    McCarthy’s position is a departure from how his predecessor Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., handled the first impeachment inquiry against former President Donald Trump. In 2019, Pelosi unilaterally proclaimed that the House would advance an impeachment inquiry against Trump after the controversy over his infamous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

    “This week, the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically,” Pelosi said on Sept. 24, 2019. “Therefore, today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella.

    “The president must be held accountable,” she continued. “No one is above the law.”

    A McCarthy spokesperson has not responded to Fox News’ request for comment.

    This article first appeared in American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

    Report: Mike Pence to Resist Special Counsel Subpoena

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Mike Pence via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Former Vice President Mike Pence is reportedly planning to fight a subpoena for testimony as part of a Justice Department special counsel’s investigation into former President Donald Trump.

    Multiple sources close to Pence informed Politico that the former VP, who is rumored to be planning to announce a 2024 White House run, will likely address his plans to resist the subpoena during a visit to Iowa on Wednesday.

    The aides told Politico that Pence’s decision to challenge Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request has little to do with executive privilege, instead, he plans to argue that his former role as president of the Senate — therefore a member of the legislative branch — shields him from certain Justice Department demands.

    Pence allies say he is covered by the constitutional provision that protects congressional officials from legal proceedings related to their work — language known as the “speech or debate” clause. The clause, Pence allies say, legally binds federal prosecutors from compelling Pence to testify about the central components of Smith’s investigation. If Pence testifies, they say, it could jeopardize the separation of powers that the Constitution seeks to safeguard.

    “He thinks that the ‘speech or debate’ clause is a core protection for Article I, for the legislature,” said one of the two people familiar with Pence’s thinking, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his legal strategy. “He feels it really goes to the heart of some separation of powers issues. He feels duty-bound to maintain that protection, even if it means litigating it.”

    That’s because the legal question of whether the vice president draws the same “speech-or-debate” protections as members of Congress remains largely unsettled, and constitutional scholars say Pence raising the issue will almost certainly force a court to weigh in. That could take months.

    “It is admittedly a constitutionally murky area with no clear outcome,” said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University political scientist who specializes in executive privilege. “Since there is a legislative function involved in the vice president presiding over the Senate, a court very well could decide that it must address the scope of the speech or debate privilege and whether it would apply in this case.”

    Last week, Smith’s office moved to subpoena Pence in one of its most aggressive moves to date as its inquiries into Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election accelerate. (RELATED: Special Counsel Overseeing Trump Criminal Probe Subpoenas Mike Pence)

    Notably, the Justice Department has previously argued in civil litigation that the “speech or debate” clause protects the vice president when working on Senate business. The department explicitly asserted in 2021 that Pence was shielded by the “speech or debate” clause in a civil lawsuit related to his role presiding over Congress’ Jan. 6 session.

    Yes, a Trump-DeSantis Ticket Could Actually Happen

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    10
    Former President of the United States Donald Trump speaking with attendees at the 2022 Student Action Summit at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Florida. [Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons]

    Despite this year’s midterms only being weeks away plenty of Americans are already looking forward to the next presidential election and the idea of a potential Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis ticket has most Republicans thrilled.

    It’s no secret that the 45th President is seriously considering running in 2024, he’s all but confirmed the fact. However, another rising star has captured the hearts of many conservatives in recent years that could derail Trump’s plans. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is widely regarded as the favorite to receive the Republican nomination if Trump doesn’t run, and some analysts say he stands a solid chance of beating out Trump for the nomination if the two became competitors.

    Some Republicans have begun to wonder if Trump ultimately does run for president who his choice for vice president would be, but one fact is for certain it won’t be Mike Pence. Conservatives have pointed to DeSantis as being a potential VP pick, a move that could avoid a divisive primary that could cost the GOP the White House.

    Some experts have cautioned against a Trump-DeSantis ticket over concerns that the 12th Amendment might stand in the way since it seems to suggest that two candidates from the same state cannot run on the presidential ticket. Trump and DeSantis are each currently Florida residents.

    The language of the amendment reads: “[t]he Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.”

    However, based on historic precedent, there’s nothing standing in Trump’s way to selecting DeSantis as his running mate. During the 2000 election concerns arose when Governor George W. Bush of Texas selected former congressman Dick Cheney as his running mate because he maintained residency in Texas during his business career.

    RealClearFlorida reports:

    Cheney moved to Wyoming four days before Bush selected him as his running mate, and Bush/Cheney went on to victory. Liberals attempted a legal challenge on the residency issue, but courts and the legal community soundly rejected it. Cheney’s move to Wyoming put an end to the issue. The courts reasoned that Cheney had fulfilled the residency requirements by doing so.

    The Bush/Cheney ticket is arguably a reverse version of a Trump/DeSantis ticket: Bush and DeSantis were both sitting governors, and thus ineligible to move. Cheney and Trump are businessmen with deep ties to other states. Some would say that Cheney had a major advantage that Trump does not. Cheney’s previous state of residence, Wyoming, loved him. Trump’s previous state, New York, is vigorously pursuing legal charges against him.

    But there is no reason Trump would need to move to New York. He could move to Tennessee, Nebraska, Wyoming, or any other state that would react favorably to his residency. It does not matter that Trump has no previous affiliation with those states.

    It’s worth noting that U.S. case law has opposed extraneous residency requirements for people running for Congress. This flexibility has allowed people like Alan Keyes and Hillary Clinton to move to new states to run for office. True, this case law has concerned states creating extra laws, as opposed to interpreting the 12th Amendment; but given that the judiciary has used the Constitution to strike down these laws, it is unlikely that the same judiciary would hold for extensive residency requirements to prevent someone from getting elected president or vice president.

    Does this mean Trump will ultimately pick DeSantis as his running mate? Not by any means but it does mean he has the opportunity to build a ticket the conservative base is already energized to vote for. But first, Trump has to reveal if he plans to run for president…and now we wait.

    Stacey Abrams’ Group Gave Millions to Law Firm Run by Her Campaign Chair

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Office of U.S. House Speaker, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is in hot water once again.

    New reports indicate Abrams’ voting rights group Fair Fight Action has funneled millions of dollars to a law firm led by the chairwoman for Abrams’s gubernatorial campaign.

    According to The Washington Examiner, Fair Fight Action spent $9.4 million in 2019 and 2020 with Lawrence & Bundy, a boutique Atlanta law firm that counts Abrams’s campaign Chairwoman Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, a close friend of the candidate, as one of its two partners, according to the nonprofit group’s 2019 and 2020 IRS tax filings.

    There are no definitive reports to show how much Lawrence-Hardy’s firm has received from Fair Fight Action in 2021 and 2022. The organization has been involved in a legal fight against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) for the past years. Fair Fight Action filed the lawsuit after Abrams lost her 2018 gubernatorial bid to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, whom she is currently running against, claiming the secretary of state engaged in voter suppression. In September, U.S. district judge Steve Jones ruled against Abrams and found no evidence of voter suppression.

    “This is a win for all Georgia election officials who dedicate their lives to safe, secure and accessible elections,” Raffensperger said at the time. “Stolen election and voter suppression claims by Stacey Abrams were nothing but poll-tested rhetoric not supported by facts and evidence.”

    “Judge Jones’ ruling exposes this legal effort for what it really is: a tool wielded by a politician hoping to wrongfully weaponize the legal system to further her own political goals,” Kemp said in a statement celebrating the ruling.

    The $9.4 million that Lawrence & Bundy received accounts for over 37% of the roughly $25 million in legal fees that Fair Fight Action has racked up in the past two years, according to Politico, which first reported on the payments to Lawrence-Hardy’s law firm.

    Fair Fight Action raised over $61 million in 2019 and 2020 after being founded in 2018. At least one-third of that money has gone toward the lawsuit against Raffensperger, while $20 million has been put in cash reserves, tax records show. While there are eight separate law firms that worked on the case against the secretary of state, Lawrence & Bundy has earned the most in fees.

    Abrams and Lawrence-Hardy were classmates together at Georgia’s Spelman College, and Abrams graduated from Yale Law School three years after Lawrence-Hardy.

    Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the left-wing think tank Public Citizen, says that Abrams’s years-long friendship with Lawrence-Hardy represents a clear conflict of interest.

    Despite Abrams’s accusations of rampant voter suppression in the Peach State early voting data reports Georgians to have already broken records for early turnout. According to The Hill, Saturday’s turnout surpassed the 2020 election’s sixth day of early voting by 20 percent.

    The 79,682 voters who cast ballots on Saturday also marked a 159 percent increase from the first Saturday of early voting in the 2018 midterm elections, according to the Georgia secretary of state’s office.

    Georgia also smashed early voting on the first day polls opened last week, when 131,318 ballots were cast in-person, far above the 70,849 reported in 2018 and close to the 136,739 mark in 2020.

    “Early Voting is strong because Georgia’s voter registration system is strong,” said Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in a statement. “Every eligible Georgian who wants to be registered to vote is registered to vote.”

    However, despite the record-breaking data Abrams is still claiming voter suppression is underway in Georgia.

    “In 2018, we had record turnout,” Abrams said in a press conference Monday. “We had record turnout that shattered records for Democrats among communities of color and in that same election … we know that 85,000 Georgians were denied their right to vote due to voter suppression tactics that shut down their precincts. We know that 50,000 voters had their right to vote held hostage by the exact match process which was proven to be voter suppression tactics. We know that thousands of people stood in lines for hours because of voter suppression tactics.”

    Report: Alleged Trump Bomber Charged

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2

    Political threats are on the rise…

    On Monday, A man pleaded not guilty after he allegedly drove past a security checkpoint and claimed to have an explosive device at a rally for former President Donald Trump in Michigan, last week.

    Steven William Nauta was arrested after police say he drove around barricades set up for Trump’s rally and told police that he had a C4 explosive, WOOD TV 8 reported. According to a court document, Nauta “held up a bottle to police and stated that it was ‘C4’ explosive and that it was the ‘real deal.’” After being told to stop by officers, Nauta allegedly “sped off” before stopping and throwing bags of fertilizer on the ground.

    The Daily Wire reports:

    “When (Nauta) finally stopped, he removed bags of fertilizer from his vehicle and threw them on the ground to make it appear that they were explosives while disobeying officers’ commands,” the court document states. The 65-year-old was eventually detained by police, and the man allegedly told officers that he intended to make them believe that he had explosives. Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker said there was no active bomb in Nauta’s vehicle.

    Nauta’s virtual court appearance from a jail cell was a bizarre scene as the man took his shirt off at one point and made profane hand gestures, according to WOOD TV 8. Nauta was charged with one felony count each of a false report or threat of terrorism, possession of bombs with unlawful intent, third-degree fleeing a police officer, and resulting, resisting or obstructing a police officer.

    Kent County, Michigan, District Court Judge Nicholas Christensen set the man’s bond at $1 million, and Nauta replied, “Well, your honor, given my situation, I think I’m better off just staying in here. Very cruel world out there. Probably a lot better off here.”

    The judge told Nauta, “It’s not lost on this court here today that your alleged actions were directed to stopping or hindering a fundamental aspect of this country’s democratic process: a political rally.”

    The Michigan man’s alleged bomb threat came just two weeks after Secret Service agents apprehended an alleged suspect with a gun near Trump’s golf course. Ryan Routh pleaded not guilty in court on Monday.

    The Republican nominee said on Monday that he has requested more Secret Service agents, but alleged that Democrats are “not giving us the proper number of people within Secret Service that are necessary for Security.”

    “We need more Secret Service, and we need them NOW,” Trump wrote. “It is ELECTION INTERFERENCE that we have to turn away thousands of people from arenas and venues because it is not being provided to us.”

    Report: Oprah Pitched a White House Run with Mitt Romney

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    This union would have certainly shaken up the 2020 election…

    The latest revelation in “Romney: A Reckoning” by McKay Coppins, out a week from Tuesday, reveals that Oprah Winfrey floated a presidential run and suggested Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney join her for a”unity ticket.”

    Axios has more:

    Coppins writes that Romney told him Winfrey, a Democrat, made a pitch to run together “to save the country,” according to a source familiar with the manuscript.

    Romney tells Coppins he dismissed the idea, believing that such a campaign would inadvertently help Trump.

    Last month, Romney announced he would not run for re-election.

    Sen. Sinema Announces Re-Election Plan

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America

    Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) announced she will not run for re-election.

    Sinema made the announcement in a video on social media.

    “Because I choose civility, understanding, listening, working together to get stuff done, I will leave the Senate at the end of this year,” she said.

    The move by Sinema means the Arizona Senate race has largely been solidified as a matchup between Democrat Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake.

    The Arizona lawmakers changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Independent in 2022.

    The nonpartisan election handicapper Cook Political Report rates Sinema’s seat as “toss up.”

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reacted to the news that broke during the daily briefing, noting that the White House has worked “closely” with Sinema on “key, important bills,” including the border security deal out of the Senate.

    “She’s been a partner with us on many critical issues that matter to the American people and we think that’s important,” Jean-Pierre told reporters.

    This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

    Bill Maher Open To Voting Republican – But With Some Changes

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2
    Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    Comedian and longtime liberal commentator Bill Maher told Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s GPS that he could “of course” envision voting Republican — but only if the party becomes something markedly different than what it has been.

    Maher, who has been a longtime critic of Donald Trump and a traditional supporter of Democrats, laid out a number of caveats before making such a move. “They would have to certainly lose the idea of ‘we don’t concede elections,’” he said.

    He added his biggest concern:

    “And my biggest worry is that they feel that the excesses of the left are so great, that they are so anti‐common sense. And again, they’re not completely wrong about that — that they are so — never met something that was counterintuitive that they didn’t embrace. That they just can’t let these people take power and, therefore, even if there has to — if democracy has to be sacrificed for hanging on to power,” Maher said.

    Maher also questioned the GOP’s long‐term commitment to democratic norms after Trump:

    “Will they still keep that idea that we cannot let these people take power? These people who just do not have any idea of common sense, they want to reinvent everything. They are revolutionaries in a country that is not asking for [a] revolution — they’re just asking for politicians to fix things. That is my biggest concern.” He noted a hope for a “return to normalcy” after Trump — though he expressed skepticism.

    At the same time, Maher acknowledged areas where he believes Trump was right:

    He pointed out the border, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, and NATO contributions. “He showed that you can close the border. It wasn’t something you needed congressional help for. You could just do it, and he did it. He just did it too far. And people don’t like to see people tackled at Home Depot and people they know who have been in this country for a long time.”

    He wrapped up by hitting both parties:

    “Why can’t either one be normal?” he asked rhetorically.

    Why this matters for Republicans

    Maher’s comments underscore a key opportunity and challenge for the GOP: there are non‐traditional voices who might vote Republican — but only if the party reaffirms core democratic norms and common‐sense governance rather than radical transformation. If Republicans continue to be associated with election denial, extreme rhetoric, or sweeping change beyond what voters ask for, they risk alienating such swing voices.

    For Republican-leaning audiences focused on policy, governance, and institutional credibility, Maher’s remarks are a reminder that expanding the party’s appeal may hinge more on tone and norms than just raw policy wins.

    America thrives under conservative leadership — help Turning Point PAC save America, one precinct at a time! Help elect America First leaders! [Support Turning Point PAC HERE]
    123...54Page 1 of 54
    © Great America News Desk 2022