<United States Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I-Arizona), is facing staunch criticism from Democratic colleagues and members of the aviation community after proposing an amendment to a bill that could impact the number of training hours pilots need to fly commercial planes.

According to Politico, Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) has been one of the Arizona lawmaker's most vocal critics, asserting, "There has never been a worse time to consider weakening pilot certification requirements to produce less experienced pilots."

One of the biggest problems with Sinema's amendment — The Intercept reports:

Sinema's campaign received an influx of cash over the last year from the airline industry. The donations would be crucial to the senator as she strikes out as a newly christened independent during a challenging reelection bid. Without her Democratic Party affiliation, Sinema heads into the 2024 race without the political or financial backing of her former party.

During a Senate hearing for the legislation earlier this week, Duckworth said, "Now is not the time to put corporate profits ahead of the lives of our constituents who may want to board a commercial flight in the future. A vote to reduce a 1,500-hour rule for pilot training will mean blood on your hands when an inevitable accident occurs as a result of an inadequately trained flight crew."

Politico reports the Illinois Democrat, who is also a veteran military pilot, noted "the pilot shortage has been 'real and painful' and, although she understands "the temptation to cut corners or chase the false promise of a quick fix to a systemic challenge," she'd like to know "specifics on how many additional pilots would be available if the minimum hours were reduced and has received."

The Independent senator's amendment, according to The Intercept's report, has also been criticized by pilot and flight attendant unions, such as "the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, representing 50,000 flight attendants."

Sara Nelson, president of the union, told the news outlet, "Any change to the rule must have sign off from the pilots or we don't trust it. It's that simple."

She emphasized, "We do not support the amendment," emphasizing, "The fact is that U.S. aviation has experienced its safest decade since this rule was put into place. As our flight deck counterparts have noted repeatedly, there may be a revision to the rule with full simulator experience that could even exceed current standards. But that must be under terms that ensure this."

Likewise, according to the report, "the Air Line Pilots Association, a union representing tens of thousands of airline pilots, wrote to the Senate in an effort to head off Sinema's amendment, which they say could cause extreme danger to pilots and passengers."

The union's statement said, "This poison pill amendment undermines the current aviation safety regime that has resulted in the safest period in air travel in history. The proposal codifies a training regime that is unstructured and introduces an unacceptable risk to our air transportation system.">

<Mayor Matt Diaz of Baker City, Oregon, is facing backlash from citizens after comparing those who support LGBTQ+ pride to Nazis, Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) reports.

The local leader recently shared Facebook post featuring "an image of four Pride flags positioned to look like a swastika," along with the caption: "When you join four pride flags you become ultra pride."

Per OPB, Diaz's "post came only a few days before Baker City's third annual Pride Walk, an event meant to celebrate the local LGBTQ+ community," which is led "by Baker County Safe Communities Coalition and New Directions Northwest, an addiction treatment nonprofit."

According to the report, Pride Walk organizer and New Directions staffer Haley Huekman, did not discuss the mayor's post, but emphasized, "Pride is about accepting and celebrating those who are in the LGBTQ+ community. It values tolerance, acceptance and inclusion. For several years the Baker County Safe Communities Coalition has put out 'You Matter' signs around Baker County. This campaign is to remind community members that we all have a place here."

Diaz has since offered an apology "for any misunderstanding," adding, he has "no hate for those who choose a different lifestyle, religion, or sexual preference than my own."

Still, the mayor stood behind his post, saying, "The post in question was meant to illustrate how the DEI or 'woke' ideology is being propagandized and militantly forced on American society and culture using the same psychological tactics used by the Nazi party in the 1930s - 1940s. It was meant to demonstrate how this movement, under the guise of inclusion and affirmation, is attacking the very foundation of America's Judeo-Christian values, a movement that some of our citizens have been thoroughly indoctrinated into."

During a Thursday evening City Council meeting, according to OPB, Diaz requested attendees only focus on discussing the city budget, and "to wait until the next regular council meeting, where he said they could bring up concerns about 'almost anything.'"

When Diaz requested Thursday's City Council meeting discussions solely focus on the budget, and nothing else until "the next regular council meeting," according to OPB, one attendee, Randy Cox spoke out, saying, "I want the budget to be for everybody. Not some of us. Not some of us for who we go to church with. Not some of us for whatever we believe in. You work for everybody."

Many other residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the mayor, calling for his resignation, OPB reports, while The Baker City Herald published a statement from City Councilor Beverly Calder, saying, "His words cast shadows far beyond our city limits as this discussion will carry on in social media platforms forever," she wrote. "This will impact our efforts to attract new businesses as well as the tourism that our communities depend upon. It's not a small thing, it is a significant breach of fitness regarding public service.">

<Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has appeared to suggest that an announcement about the fate of the missing Titan submersible was somehow planned to distract from accusations against the president’s son Hunter Biden.

“If the U.S. Navy suspected that the Titan Submersible imploded just hours after it began its voyage, why did the Coast Guard wait until Thursday—the same day the IRS whistleblowers testified before Congress—to make their announcement to the public?” asked the senator in a Friday night tweet.

Authorities searching for the Titan said Thursday afternoon that the vessel seemed to suffer a “catastrophic” failure not long after launching into the North Atlantic on Sunday, killing all aboard. It took several days to mobilize high-tech equipment and locate any sign of the sub. After a debris field on the ocean floor turned out to be remnants of the Titan, the U.S. Navy revealed that it had detected what was likely the sound of the vessel imploding Sunday, although the Navy said it could not be sure at the time.

Also on Thursday, the GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee convened behind closed doors and voted to release IRS whistleblower testimony criticizing a federal investigation into Joe Biden’s son.

The interviews with the two whistleblowers had taken place weeks ago, not the same day as the Titan announcement, as Blackburn suggested.

The pair alleged that the Justice Department improperly interfered with the investigation of Hunter Biden, which began as a tax probe and expanded to look at his business dealings. Attorney General Merrick Garland staunchly denied accusations of wrongdoing.

The younger Biden — who has long been a target of Republican ire — reached an agreement with prosecutors on two tax-related charges and one gun charge Tuesday. Republicans have been calling it a “sweetheart deal.”

Conspiracy theories about the Titan have abounded on social media in the days since the submersible vanished on its expedition to see the sunken Titanic. While some questions about the Titan’s doomed voyage still remain, such as precisely why it imploded, there is no evidence to back up Blackburn’s suggestion that its discovery was planned for political reasons.>

<A slight change in the small print in Donald Trump's online disclosures reveals an increase in the money contributors have been donating to help him win the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination is being shifted to help to pay his legal bills.

According to a report from the New York Times, the diversion of funds raises questions about the cash crunch the former president is facing with multiple indictments at the state and federal level with more expected to come.

As the Times' Maggie Haberman and Shane Goldmacher wrote, the "diversion" of campaign cash to his Save America PAC -- which is helping to pay his legal bills among other expenses -- was done with little fanfare.

The report states, "When Mr. Trump kicked off his 2024 campaign in November, for every dollar raised online, 99 cents went to his campaign, and a penny went to Save America," before adding, "But internet archival records show that sometime in February or March, he adjusted that split. Now his campaign’s share has been reduced to 90 percent of donations, and 10 percent goes to Save America."

According to the report, that has meant that approximately $1.5 million was skimmed off to help with his legal woes that could have been used to boost his election prospects.

The report adds, "Save America technically owns the list of email addresses and phone numbers of his supporters — one of the former president’s most valuable assets — and the campaign is effectively paying the PAC for access to that list," according to Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung who refused to go into details about the financial maneuvering.

The Times is also reporting that there appears to be a cash drain at the PAC as legal fees suck up cash.

"For more than a year, before Mr. Trump was a 2024 candidate, Save America has been paying for bills related to various investigations into the former president and his allies. In February 2022, the PAC announced that it had $122 million in its coffers," the Times is reporting. "By the beginning of 2023, the PAC’s cash on hand was down to $18 million, filings show. The rest had been spent on staff salaries, on the costs of Mr. Trump’s political activities last year — including some spending on other candidates and groups — and in other ways. That included the $60 million that was transferred to MAGA Inc., a super PAC that is supporting Mr. Trump. And more than $16 million went to pay legal bills.">

<To the editor: In the late 1970s, I was a newly appointed commissioner to a county board. I went to lunch with a staffer to learn more about how the agency worked. To thank him, I offered to pay for his lunch — no more than $15. He let me know in no uncertain terms that he was not allowed to accept gifts. ("Supreme Court controversy over Alito, Thomas free trips began with Justice Scalia," June 21)

Today I am on the board of an affordable housing nonprofit. At each meeting we have to disclose whether we have a conflict of interest regarding any of the items on the agenda.

For Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to think he has no duty to report six-figure gifts is beyond comprehension. For him to actually continue to hear and vote on cases in which the donor was involved makes a mockery of judicial integrity. For him to write that he has no duty to recuse himself says all we need to know about his integrity.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the time is long overdue for you to make ethics a priority at the Supreme Court.

Chris Soltow, Thousand Oaks

To the editor: The United States has a code of conduct that applies to all federal judges. These rules of reason — or Canons, as they are called — provide guidance on a variety of outside activities as well as the performance of the judges' official duties.

It seems to me that the highest court in our land should at least attempt to maintain and enforce high standards of conduct.

The code states that "a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities," and that a judge "should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved."

I think the justices should re-read these Canons, as they are rapidly losing their integrity and their independence. It appears they have no ethical conscience or morality left.

Sheryl Kinne, Van Nuys

To the editor: Alito justifies his flight on a private jet and time at a $1,000-plus per night lodge — which he describes as "comfortable but rustic" — as being exempt from reporting requirements because the trip was based on "personal hospitality."

Alito is quoted as saying that he has spoken with the billionaire donor Paul Singer "on no more than a handful of occasions."

Singer must be generous in the extreme, at least to Supreme Court justices, if he spends tens of thousands of dollars on persons to whom he has spoken only occasionally.

Ed Schoch, Westchester>

<When the Supreme Court issued its abortion ruling last June overturning Roe v. Wade, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy said "our work is far from done.” He didn't say what might come next.

A year later, McCarthy is the speaker, Republicans are in the majority and the blanks are beginning to be filled in.

In a flurry of little-noticed legislative action, GOP lawmakers are pushing abortion policy changes, trying to build on the work of activists whose strategy successfully elevated their fight to the nation's highest court.

In one government funding bill after another, Republicans are incorporating unrelated policy provisions, known as riders, to restrict women's reproductive rights. Democrats say the proposals will never become law.

“This is not just about an attack on women’s health,” Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Friday. “I view it as an attempt to derail the entire process of funding the federal government by injecting these riders into the appropriations process.”

Rep. Kay Granger, the Texas Republican who heads the committee, said during a hearings this past week that the riders that were included continue “long-standing pro-life protections that are important to our side of the aisle.”

Using budget bills this way is hardly new, but it points to a broader divide among Republicans about where to go next on abortion after the Supreme Court's decision cleared the way for state-by-state restrictions on abortion rights.

Republicans for years held stand-alone votes in the House on bills to restrict abortion. Now, some in the party — particularly the nearly 20 Republicans running for reelection in swing districts — are hesitant, if not outright opposed, to roll calls on abortion proposals. They say such bills will never see the light of day as long as Democrats control the Senate.

The GOP's new push is taking place line by line in the sprawling legislation drafted each year to fund government agencies and programs.

Nearly a dozen anti-abortion measures have been included so far in budget bills. In the agricultural one, for example, Republicans are looking to reverse a recent move by the Food and Drug Administration that would allow the contraception pill mifepristone to be dispensed in certified pharmacies, as opposed to only in hospitals and clinics.

Anti-abortion proposals have found their way into the defense bill, where GOP lawmakers are aiming to ban paid leave and travel for military service members and their family members who are seeking reproductive health care services. Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he warned Defense Secretary Llyod [sic] Austin about it.

“I told them that that was going to be a poison pill when it came to getting their legislation done over here,” Rogers, R-Ala., said this past week. “I told him, you know, you’re asking for trouble. And now they got trouble.”

There are riders, too, in the financial services bill, where Republicans want to prohibit local and federal money to be used to carry out a District of Columbia law that bans discrimination over employees’ reproductive decisions.

“It seems like they can’t do anything without trying to put something in there to restrict abortion rights,” Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington state, chair of the House Democrats' campaign arm, said. “I don’t think the public is fooled by that and absolutely, this will be a critical issue in the next election.”

She and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are working to target the vulnerable Republicans on the issue before the 2024 election....>

<....The broad effort by Republicans to include what critics often deride as “poison pills” in the appropriations process steps up the confrontation with Senate Democrats and the White House come September over spending bills, potentially heightening the odds of a government shutdown with the Oct. 1 start of the new budget year.

DeLauro, who headed the Appropriations Committee in the last Congress, said the decision by Republicans to include these measures is a betrayal of the agreement the parties made years ago to not include any provisions in spending bills that would block passage.

She said committee Democrats who spent the past week marking up these bills late into the night pleaded with their Republican colleagues to rethink the abortion language.

The Senate just last week passed the military and agriculture bills out of committee without any abortion measures attached.

Sen. Patty Murray, chair of the Senate Appropriation Committee, told The Associated Press that she has made it clear that she would be a “firewall” against House Republicans’ efforts to further restrict reproductive rights.

“I have fought back Republican efforts to restrict access to reproductive health care and abortion in every deal or negotiation I have been a part of since I got to the Senate — that’s not changing any time soon,” said Murray, D-Wash.

In a previous statement with the committee’s top Republican, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the two pledged "to continue working together in a bipartisan manner to craft serious funding bills that can be signed into law.”

But the growing tension between GOP factions over abortion legislation remains apparent.

The Republican Study Committee — the largest single group in the House GOP conference — recently issued a memo to members urging leaders to hold vote on a proposal that would “clarify that health insurance plans that provide elective abortion would be ineligible for federal funding.”

That bill would effectively codify the Hyde Amendment, which restricts government funding for most abortions. Democrats have allowed it to become part of government funding legislation for decades, as a trade-off of sorts that has enabled them to focus on securing other priorities.

It is unclear whether House Republican leaders will want to take the risk of bringing anti-abortion measures to the floor for votes when the spending bill route may be a more palatable option for some in the party.>

<Lawmakers in several Republican-led states have been looking to exert more authority over state and local election offices, claiming new powers that Democrats warn could be used to target left-leaning counties in future elections.

The moves range from requiring legislative approval of court settlements in election-related lawsuits to creating paths for taking over local election offices.

In North Carolina, a Republican proposal working its way through the General Assembly would change the composition of state and county election boards and give lawmakers sole authority to appoint board members.

Republican lawmakers in Texas recently approved legislation that not only eliminates the top election official in the Democratic stronghold of Harris County, which includes Houston, but also permits the state’s chief election official — the secretary of state — to take over the county’s election office. The secretary is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, both now in Republican hands.

Election observers say it’s imperative for public trust that elections remain free of partisan manipulation and they say they worry about lawmakers deciding to assert their new powers for political gain.

“There are ways that states can intervene and help local election officials,” said David Levine, a former local election official in Idaho who is now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy. “Instead, we are seeing states that are enacting laws that could introduce new challenges to the conduct of U.S. elections.”

Attempts by Republican legislatures to expand their power over how elections are run have soared since the 2020 presidential election, spurred by former President Donald Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud. Republican lawmakers characterize the moves as necessary oversight aimed at improving elections, while Democrats criticize them as power grabs that could be used to interfere in voting or ballot counting.

The offices that oversee elections at the state or local level are primarily filled by people who win partisan elections or are appointed in a process that involves partisan officials. But those in the jobs have typically worked to maintain a nonpartisan approach to running elections. Since the 2020 presidential election, a few of these positions have been taken by people who rejected the results, raising doubts about how they will run their office.

Some of the legislation passed during that time by Republican lawmakers has led to additional concerns about partisan interference. Lawmakers in 13 mostly GOP-controlled states have passed an estimated 15 bills that either expanded lawmakers' authority over elections or took some action to interfere with local election administrators, according to data collected by the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks voting-related legislation in the states and advocates for expanded voter access.

In Texas, laws just passed by Republican lawmakers and signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott will abolish the elections administrator’s office in heavily Democratic Harris County, which includes Houston and has more than 2 million voters. The laws also provide a way for the state to take oversight of the county’s election office in the future.

The rush by the Texas GOP to shake up elections in the nation’s third-largest county — and one with large numbers of Hispanic and Black voters — followed limited problems in November’s elections that included a shortage of paper ballots and some polling locations opening late. Previous stumbles also have put Harris County elections under scrutiny by Republicans, including 10,000 mail ballots that weren’t counted the day of the 2022 primary.

“This is about performance, not politics,” said state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Houston Republican.

Leaders in Harris County have accused Republicans of using the issues as an excuse to take greater control of elections in a place that is increasingly tilting toward Democrats. A lawsuit is expected.

The county was virtually split in the 2012 presidential race. By 2020, Democrat Joe Biden easily won Harris County by double digits.

“This has been a big saga of the state deciding that they don’t like the way Harris County residents vote, so instead they’re going to take control of the Harris County elections apparatus,” said Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, a Democrat and the county’s top elected official.

In North Carolina, where Republicans control the legislature, lawmakers are making another attempt to take power away from the governor, a Democrat, in deciding who serves on election boards. The moves come after Republicans were thwarted in previous years by the courts and by voters, who opposed a 2018 constitutional amendment....>

<....Republicans, who now hold veto-proof majorities, envision an eight-person State Board of Elections that likely would be comprised of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, appointed by legislative leaders of both political parties. It would replace the current five-person model, with appointees of Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper based on lists of candidates provided by the two parties. Under current state law, no more than three members of the board can be of the same political party.

Republicans have pointed to a legal settlement reached over mail ballot deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic between the Democratic-controlled board and a union-affiliated group as proof of partisan mischief.

“Those actions were enabled by a board that circumvented the legislative process and caused North Carolinians to lose trust in the election process,” said Senate leader Phil Berger, a Republican. “Now we will take the necessary steps to begin rebuilding that trust.”

The elections bill, which passed the Senate this past week, also would reduce the size of county election boards from five members to four. Legislative leaders of both parties would appoint the members, rather than the current model in which the governor has one appointment and the State Board of Elections fills the rest of the seats. Democrats see the change as a recipe for stalemate.

“This is going to result in uncertified election results, uncertainty and endless litigation,” said Minority Leader Dan Blue, a Democrat.

Fears of a takeover did not come to pass in Georgia after the GOP-controlled legislature passed a bill in 2021 that gave the State Election Board the power to intervene in county election offices and remove local election officials. After its review clause was triggered by Republican lawmakers, the board launched an examination of Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta and has had a history of election troubles.

After the review found the heavily Democratic county had shown considerable improvement, the board recently decided against taking over its election office. Matt Mashburn, a Republican appointee to the board, said the “talking heads were wrong” when they suggested the law would be used to meddle in local elections.

“I think the process has been very good and thorough, and everybody took their time,” he said.

In Wisconsin, state election commissioners are scheduled to meet this coming week to consider whether Meagan Wolfe, the state’s nonpartisan election administrator, should serve another term. It's one of the relatively few examples of nonpartisan election administration in the United States.

Commissioners are weighing the chances of Wolfe surviving confirmation in the Republican-led Senate, where some lawmakers have pledged not to support her despite numerous reviews in the state affirming there was no evidence of widespread fraud or wrongdoing with the state’s elections in 2020. Republicans in the state have made various efforts in recent years to weaken the bipartisan election commission, which has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.

Kathy Bernier, a former Republican state senator and county election official who has spoken out against false claims of widespread fraud, said commissioners face a tough vote.

“The difficulty with both Republicans and Democrats right now is they don’t trust anyone as nonpartisan," she said. "So whoever they pick, one side or the other is probably going to have a complaint or two.”>

<Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) suggested her television may be spying on her.

In a message posted to Twitter on Sunday, Greene cited strange behavior from her home electronics.

"Last night in my DC residence, the television turned on by itself, and the screen showed someone's laptop trying to connect to the TV," she wrote.

The lawmaker offered assurances that she was not in mental distress.

"Just for the record: I'm very happy," she said. "I'm also very healthy and eat well and exercise a lot. I don't smoke and never have. I don't take any medications. I am not vaccinated. So I'm not concerned about blood clots, heart conditions, strokes, or anything else."

Greene didn't understand why the television would be spying on her because she did not have "anything to hide."

"I just love my country and the people and know how much they've been screwed over by the corrupt people in our government, and I'm not willing to be quiet about it or willing to go along with it," she concluded.

She followed up her tweet with a link to a story about smart TVs "spying on you."

"You know what they say about conspiracy theories," she later added.>

<The cherry tree folklore is too good to be true, but it's no lie that George Washington had a thing for the truth. “I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is the best policy,” he wrote in his farewell address.

A few decades later, another future president's reputation for veracity earned him a well known nickname: Honest Abe Lincoln.

Then there's Donald Trump, who during his presidency faced questions about business dealings in Moscow. “I have nothing to do with Russia,” he said in 2016. He switched stories when the facts of his decades-long effort to build a luxury tower there emerged. “Everybody” had always known about the project, according to Trump, who suggested only a sucker would drop such a proposal just because they wanted to serve their country as president.

“Why should I lose lots of opportunities?” Trump said.

America has had prevaricators in the Oval Office before, but never one who has been at war with the truth as regularly, on so many different subjects. As a candidate and as president, Trump demonstrated a keen ability to use broadcast and social media to amplify his distortions, and found remarkable success in convincing large chunks of the American public.

As Trump seeks a second term while fighting federal and state charges, the nation faces the prospect of another campaign riddled with falsehoods and misinformation, and the possibility that he could be returned to the White House by an electorate that either believes his falsehoods, or doesn't care.

“This is a test moment. We haven’t been in a situation like this,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Jamieson said that before Trump, the assumption was that certain lies — lies that undermine faith in democracy or the courts, for instance — would be disqualifying for a person seeking public office. “If saying the election was rigged doesn't fall into that category, then what does?”

As a candidate, Trump made misinformation a major campaign tactic, routinely using falsehoods to demean his rivals, as he did when he bizarrely asserted that Ted Cruz's father may have played a role in the Kennedy assasination. Cruz is now an unapologetic Trump supporter.

As a president, Trump misled Americans about economic indicators, about a hurricane, about climate change and about his past actions and meetings with foreign leaders. While leading the nation through the pandemic he underplayed the severity of coronavirus while endorsing fake cures.

In today's fragmented information ecosystem, efforts by journalists to fact-check the president didn't always reach those who accepted his words as truth. That may be changing, according to one Republican strategist who said he thinks his party is waking up to Trump's alternative fact universe.

“To me, he’s sort of a tragic 77-year-old individual who is totally out of touch with reality, sort of creates his own reality,” said Craig Fuller, who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fuller said he believes the relatively large field of Republicans vying with Trump for the GOP endorsement is a sign that many voters want a more honest alternative, even as a large field also improves Trump's chances of winning.

“I think it’s almost too dangerous to contemplate,” Fuller said when asked to imagine a second Trump term.

A message seeking comment from Trump's campaign was not immediately returned on Friday.

During his presidency, Trump lied so often — in person, on TV, on Twitter — that tallies of his falsehoods quickly crested 100, then 1,000, then 10,000 and then 30,000. An entire wikipedia page was created dedicated to keeping track.

Elections and voting have long been the most frequent target of Trump's mistruths. He won the 2016 race but claimed that it was rigged anyway because he lost the popular vote. He declared the 2020 race rigged even before Election Day, and said before the vote that the only way he could lose the election was due to cheating. Proof was never offered, and after the election, Trump's claims were rejected by dozens of courts, including ones overseen by Trump-appointed judges....>

<....It was Trump's lies about democracy, and about the integrity of elections and the courts, that worry experts on voting, politics and history the most.

“It's not the first step, it's the 100th step on the road to despotism,” Jeffrey Engel, director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University, said of Trump's attacks on judicial independence and law enforcement. “What's shocking to me is how open Trump is about it.”

Conflicts between presidents, Congress and the courts are a fundamental part of American government, Engel said, and plenty of presidents have shaded the truth about failings personal and public. But none have openly defied another branch in the way that Trump has.

For months before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Trump implored supporters with a steady stream of false claims about rigged elections, voting by mail and stuffed ballot boxes. He then did little to disperse the violent crowd that soon descended on the Capitol. The congressional investigation into the attack concluded that Trump engaged in a conspiracy to overturn the election.

To activists working to strengthen American democracy, the deadly riot showed what happens when lies are allowed to take the place of truth.

“On Jan. 6 we re-learned how fragile our democracy is,” said Nathan Empsall, an Episcopal priest who leads Faithful America, a nonprofit religious organization that has criticized efforts to rewrite the history of Jan. 6. “If we don’t remember that, if we forget what happened, we may not be able to hold the line next time.”

While Trump didn't create the factors that led to our current era of polarization and misinformation, he did exploit those factors, said Julian E. Zelizer, a Princeton University historian and political scientist.

“I don’t know if Donald Trump is the chicken or the egg but I know he’s part of the scramble,” Zelizer said. “He entered politics in an age of social media and growing issues of distrust and he catalyzed them. He poured gasoline on the smouldering flames, and the statements he makes apparently don't need to be tethered to reality because his believers like his version better."

When Trump was arraigned in April in New York on charges that he falsified business records to obscure hush money payments in an effort to influence the 2016 election, many of his online supporters openly compared the scandal-plagued thrice-married tycoon to Jesus Christ, who Christians believe rose from the dead following his cruxificion.

His vocal online supporters have stayed just as supportive following his federal indictment this month.

Trump may be emblematic of our current era of misinformation, but distrust and political polarization can't be ascribed to one individual and typically arise from deep societal fissures and economic pressures, according to Nealin Parker, executive director of Common Ground USA, a nonprofit that studies ways to bridge America's political divide.

“Often people are looking for a silver bullet: if only we didn’t have this one political leader we’d be fine," Parker said. “But that's not how it works.”>

<United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's billionaire donor's hedge fund, Elliott Management, plans to dispute a new set of financial regulations that were created to combat fraud, Jacobin reports.

This comes after the justice's Wall Street Journal op-ed ran earlier this week "in what appeared to be an effort to preempt" a "ProPublica report that raises questions about Alito's failure to recuse himself from a case involving hedge fund magnate Paul Singer, as well as allegations that Alito failed to 'list certain items as gifts' on his 2008 financial disclosures."

Using a Supreme Court decision supported by Alito, according to the report, Elliot suggests "the rules are unconstitutional, and could ultimately try to bring a case before Alito to strike down the new regulations if they are enacted."

Alito wrote in the WSJ op-ed, "ProPublica has leveled two charges against me. First, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose [sic] Report."

Per Jacobin, "Elliott’s efforts to weaponize a recent Supreme Court case to block anti-fraud rules — and to potentially use the high court to kill them — spotlights how judges are in key positions to help billionaires who provide them with gifts and other largesse."

According to the report, an attorney for Elliott Elliott said, "This would pose an existential threat to the activist investor’s business model.">

<Former United States President Donald Trump is an avid golfer who has spent countless hours on the golf courses, even during his presidency. So it’s not exactly shocking that he would have some impressive accomplishments in the sport as a result. But one recent claim by the former president is a little bit too unbelievable.

While on the course this week, Donald Trump was asked about one specific and extremely rare golf accomplishment: the hole-in-one. And surprisingly, Trump claimed that not only does he have multiple aces throughout his golf career, but he insists that done it an absolutely ridiculous number of times.

“How many hole-in-ones have you had in your life?” a reporter asked the former president last week.

Trump responded confidently without missing a beat: “Seven.”

“Legitimately seven,” Trump claimed. “They’ll say ‘Oh wow.’ But I have legitimately had seven.”

If this were true, it would put Trump near the top of the all-time list of most hole-in-ones in a golf career. Robert Allenby and Hal Sutton – professional golfers – are tied for the all-time record of holes-in-one in a lifetime on the PGA Tour with 10. Not only that, but stitchgolf.com gives an amateur golfer a 0.01% chance of hitting a hole-in-one.>

<Jeremy Fogel was a California state court judge in the early 1990s when an attorney asked him to lunch at a country club in Palo Alto. It was tradition, the lawyer explained, to extend an invitation to new arrivals.

Fogel declined. In an interview, he said that throughout his career — he was nominated to the federal bench by former President Bill Clinton — he tried to avoid situations that might give the impression he was being offered something because of his position, even if the rules allowed it.

“The thing that mattered most was that you were fair, the substance of fairness and being as impartial and conscientious as you could be,” said the 73-year-old Fogel, who testified before the Senate earlier this year in favor of ethics reforms for the US Supreme Court. “But I think appearances are important, too.”

Recent controversies over perks accepted by Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have raised questions not only about the justices’ conduct off the bench and what they disclose to the public, but also about how the judiciary broadly enforces ethics.

Fogel, who stepped down from the bench in 2018, and seven current federal judges, Republican and Democratic appointees, shared their insights into how the judiciary operates as well as their own experiences with ethics issues. They declined to comment on reports about Thomas and Alito, but most still requested anonymity given the sensitivity of addressing any situation related to the high court.

A judiciary spokesperson declined an interview request to discuss ethics compliance processes.

Golf, NBA Tickets

Some judges described taking a hard line against accepting anything of value unless it came from family or close friends – splitting the check for lunch or dinner, saying no to a golf outing with lawyers, and turning down free tickets to an NBA game. Other judges weren’t as strict, but said that before accepting a gift, even from a friend, they’d consider if it was something they could reciprocate later.

Judges said they usually found the rules clear on what to report, what gifts to refuse, and when to step down from a case. Judiciary staff and fellow judges are available to offer informal guidance, and most said that they consult the judiciary’s advisory opinions and other guidelines addressing examples of ethical quandaries.

But the judges admit there’s gray area as well. Setting aside clear conflicts of interest — like owning stock in a company appearing before them — the judges said they have discretion to decide how to comply with another core ethical principle: avoiding the “appearance” of impropriety.

One district judge, a Republican appointee, said a key factor was the nature of a relationship. The judge said they would take a trip with a friend from college or law school, but would question the motive of someone they didn’t know and whether they’d get the same offer if they weren’t a judge.

The judge said they were out for Sunday lunch with family some years ago at a Chinese restaurant and learned that another customer, a local attorney, had covered the check. While the bill likely cost no more than $75 and the lawyer didn’t have a pending case before the judge, the jurist still insisted on paying the bill.

Private Planes

Judges are allowed to accept gifts and to associate with lawyers and others who might have future business before the court. With some exceptions, they must report gifts worth more than $415 and reimbursed travel expenses. But several judges said they took a cautious approach to head off the possibility of having to recuse from cases. They noted that unlike the justices, they’re bound by a code of conduct and subject to disciplinary action.

Chief Justice John Roberts has said the justices consult the code of conduct that applies to other judges, but the high court has resisted calls to officially adopt it. Federal laws require the justices and lower court judges to file annual financial reports and to step aside from cases where their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

In a report this week, ProPublica detailed an Alaska trip that Alito took in 2008, including flying on hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s private plane. The story quoted ethics experts questioning Alito’s decision not to report the trip and not to recuse from later cases involving Singer’s fund.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Alito said he believed the trip was “hospitality” that he wasn’t required to report at the time. The judiciary recently tightened reporting rules concerning private jet travel and free commercial lodging. Alito wrote that he wasn’t aware of Singer’s involvement in any litigation, and even if he had, he didn’t think their limited relationship would require stepping aside....>

<....Private plane rides have cropped up in financial disclosures before. Justice Thomas reported several such trips in his reports decades ago, documents show. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and retired Justice Stephen Breyer reported accepting free travel.

One appellate judge, a Democratic appointee, said they didn’t report a trip on a private plane several years ago. The judge said that because the ride was provided in connection with a meeting at a university where they were a trustee, they didn’t think it qualified as a gift. The university would have covered the expenses regardless, but no money changed hands, so the judge said it didn’t seem to be reportable reimbursed travel either.

In response to earlier reporting by ProPublica about undisclosed trips Thomas took with Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, Thomas released a statement saying the two men were close friends and it was personal hospitality. He said he hadn’t reported the travel on Crow’s plane and yacht after seeking advice from “colleagues and others in the judiciary.”

ProPublica’s latest story noted that a federal appeals judge in Washington, Judge A. Raymond Randolph, was on the 2008 trip with Alito, and had taken a similar excursion before. Randolph, who didn’t return a request for comment, told ProPublica that he’d contacted the judiciary’s financial disclosure office and was told by a staff member that he didn’t need to report that type of trip.

Like Randolph, several judges interviewed for this story said they had called the financial disclosure committee with questions about what to report or contacted a separate committee about ethical uncertainties.

Judge Harris Hartz, who was appointed by President George W. Bush to the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, said he once called the disclosure committee when he wasn’t sure how to report payments from an easement on land he owned. A staff member said there didn’t appear to be a place for it. When the judge explained that he wanted to disclose, the staffer advised him to add a note, which he did.

Hartz said in an interview that in his experience, the staff and judges on the disclosure committee do comprehensive reviews of financial reports – judges get notified about errors or missing information – and he had confidence in the system.

“The judges I know, and I know a lot of them, they’re not corrupt,” he said. “That doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes on these forms.”>

<Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron directly solicited donations for his gubernatorial campaign from executives of a Kentucky drug treatment organization that his office began investigating last year, according to an attorney for the organization.

The request for contributions occurred during a call Cameron made early this year to a representative of Edgewater Recovery Centers, Edgewater attorney Michael Denbow told The Associated Press.

A Cameron campaign official made a follow-up call to the same representative, and there was an exchange regarding a possible fundraiser that ultimately never occurred, he said. Denbow declined to identify the Edgewater representative who received the calls.

Several Edgewater executives later donated $7,600 to Cameron's campaign. Those donations have since been refunded, the campaign said. But the solicitations and their timing, coming as Edgewater was under investigation, have led to demands for an investigation from the campaign of Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, Cameron's opponent in one of the nation's most closely watched elections this year. And it escalated a cross-volley of attacks over campaign finances.

Edgewater directed questions about the Cameron-related matter to Denbow.

“They were directly solicited by Daniel to give to his campaign," Denbow, speaking on behalf of the company, told the AP in a phone interview Friday. "And I think Edgewater thought it was probably very prudent to make sure that they preserve their ability to work with whomever was successful in November ... to help further Edgewater’s goals.”

In his response, Cameron told the AP in a statement issued Sunday that his “approach" to the Edgewater-related campaign donations has been to "review, recuse and refund.”

Cameron recused himself from the Edgewater investigation in May, immediately after learning of the contributions, according to his office. The donations were first reported by The Daily Beast. Cameron's office didn't comment on the status of the case. Edgewater denies any wrongdoing in the matter.

Cameron's campaign acknowledged it discussed a possible fundraiser with individuals representing Edgewater.

“There were preliminary conversations about hosting an event,” Cameron said in the statement. “Once we were made aware of a conflict, the event was canceled. When they later made online contributions, I recused myself and the contributions were refunded.”

Beshear's campaign called Monday for an investigation, saying the attorney general's office has “an obligation” to refer Cameron's actions to the FBI for review.

“The timing is clear -- Daniel Cameron personally called a business he was investigating and solicited campaign contributions," Beshear's campaign said. “His actions are unethical and must be investigated.”....>

<.....This year's matchup between Cameron and Beshear in Republican-trending Kentucky could offer something of a preview of voter sentiment ahead of 2024 campaigns for president and control of Congress. Campaign fundraising allegations suddenly have surged to the forefront of the bare-knuckled contest in Kentucky.

Last week, Cameron’s office asked the FBI to investigate an infusion of campaign donations — linked to a single credit card — that flowed to the Kentucky Democratic Party and Beshear’s campaign. The governor’s campaign and the state party moved to refund more than $200,000 in donations that they determined to exceed limits set by law.

Cameron pounced on the Democratic-related matter to sharply criticize the governor. In his statement Sunday, Cameron accused Beshear of taking “illegal campaign contributions” and declared that political candidates “owe transparency and accountability to the people they represent.”

But Cameron's campaign also finds itself on the defensive regarding campaign finances.

Edgewater has been under investigation since 2022 by the Office of Medicaid Fraud and Abuse in the attorney general's office. A case number indicates that the investigation started last year, Denbow said. Edgewater received a subpoena for information in early March as part of the probe, he said.

Cameron's call to the Edgewater representative occurred before the subpoena was served, Denbow said. In that call and in the follow-up call by a Cameron campaign representative, there were “no promises or threats,” he said. “They reached out to solicit campaign funds.”

“The investigation was ongoing, but I certainly do not think there was any mention or acknowledgement by Daniel in his communications about that,” Denbow added.

There was "no quid pro quo” intended when Edgewater's executives donated to Cameron's campaign, the attorney said. And it was Cameron's campaign that decided to refund the donations, he said.

“It’s my understanding it was done after Daniel recused himself from the investigation and then they made that determination,” Denbow said. "We’re unaware of the basis for it.”

Edgewater Recovery Centers offer alcohol and drug abuse treatment for men and women, according to its website. Edgewater is a state-licensed behavioral health organization offering “multiple levels of care,” with facilities in a handful of Kentucky communities, the website says.>

<On Monday morning, former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele dropped the hammer on House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) for backing plans by Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) for a proposal to expunge Donald Trump's two impeachments from the Congressional Record.

Steele's comments came on "Morning Joe" after host Mika Brzezinski shared clips of a combative McCarthy defending the plan last Friday, which in turn led the ex-GOP official to scorch the top Republican's scrambling attempt to justify spending the House's time on a purely symbolic gesture that can't erase the historical record.

Steele took particular exception to McCarthy's mention of special counsel John Durham's report that resulted in no convictions.

"You just create the confusion, you just throw crap up against the wall," Steele accused, "and everybody is going to run around and try to figure out, well, can they do that? What does it mean?"

"The reality of it is, you're not -- you can't expunge the impeachment," he exclaimed. "Yeah, you can take it out of the official Congressional Record, but it doesn't change history, it doesn't change what happened. It doesn't change the fact that you and a lot of Republicans are on the record during that time talking about the very thing you said never happened and didn't exist and they weren't saying it didn't happen and it didn't exist."

"So the reality of it is, this is just more confusion," he continued. "Again, for me, it just boils down to, how damn dumb and desperate do you have to be to continue to find a way to keep Donald Trump's behind out of trouble as he keeps putting himself in trouble?"

"I mean, look, all the stuff that we're talking about, Mika, this stuff that Trump did -- nobody else but him. Yet, these folks are just --- they're beside themselves, they bend themselves backward and put their heads in very dark places to protect this man. It's just astounding to me, he could care less about Kevin," he added.>

Keep it coming, Kev-baby; always knew you would toady before the Freedom Caucus and Elise, <Otiose Offal>.

<The US Supreme Court reinstated an order that would require a second majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana, backing out of a case it had agreed to hear and saying the clash should go forward before a federal appeals court.

The order is part of the fallout from the court’s unexpected June 8 ruling bolstering the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama case.

US District Judge Shelly Dick ruled last year that the Voting Rights Act required Louisiana, which is 33% Black and has six congressional districts, to create a second majority-Black district for the US House.

The Supreme Court then placed a temporary hold on Dick’s ruling, allowing use of a Republican-drawn map with just one majority-Black district for the 2022 election.

At the same time, the high court took the unusual step of agreeing to hear the state’s appeal — bypassing a federal appeals court — but putting the case on hold until it resolved the Alabama dispute. The Alabama ruling was a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the three liberals in the majority.

The Supreme Court said Monday its latest move will let the case proceed at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals “in the ordinary course and in advance of the 2024 congressional elections in Louisiana.”

The case is Ardoin v. Robinson, 21-1596.>

<Lance Armstrong is widely considered one of the most prolific cheaters on the planet after he was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for doping throughout his career. But in a wild turn of events, he is now pretending to care about “fairness” in sports.

This week, Lance Armstrong posted a series of tweets in which the disgraced cyclist called for a “spirited debate” about whether or not it is fair for transgender women to compete in women’s sports and teasing a new series where he claims he will “dive into this issue with an open mind.”

“Have we really come to a time and place where spirited debate is not only frowned upon, but feared? Where people’s greatest concern is being fired, shamed or cancelled? As someone all too familiar with this phenomenon, I feel I’m uniquely positioned to have these conversations,” Armstrong said in a tweet on Saturday night.

“Of all the controversial and polarizing subjects out there today, I’m not sure there are any as heated as the topic of Trans athletes in sport.”

“Is there not a world in which one can be supportive of the transgender community and curious about the fairness of Trans athletes in sport yet not be labeled a transphobe or a bigot as we ask questions? Do we yet know the answers? And do we even want to know the answers?” Armstrong said.

“I do. Hence these conversations… a special series of The Forward, beginning Monday, where I dive into this issue with an open mind in an attempt learn as much as possible from all sides of the debate.”>

<US District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled on Monday that special counsel Jack Smith cannot file under seal the names of 84 potential witnesses who may offer incriminating testimony after former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents.

Cannon in a brief order wrote that she was not convinced that federal prosecutors did not have other means at their disposal to justify shielding the list of potential witnesses from public view.

"The Government's Motion does not explain why filing the list with the Court is necessary; it does not offer a particularized basis to justify sealing the list from public view; it does not explain why partial sealing, redaction, or means other than sealing are unavailable or unsatisfactory; and it does not specify the duration of any proposed seal," Cannon wrote.

The Trump-appointed judge noted that a bevy of news organizations, including The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Insider, have also opposed keeping the potential witnesses' names private. The news organizations previously wrote to the court that sealing would deprive Americans from learning about "a highly significant initial step in this extraordinary prosecution."

As part of the conditions of Trump's release, the former president isn' t allowed to contact the potential witnesses about the case except through his counsel. The federal government was then instructed to provide a list of names to Trump and the court, setting off the current episode.

The former president's own lawyers have strongly indicated that the potential witnesses could include senior officials and people who are still around Trump. Waltine Nauta, who was charged alongside Trump, continues to be the former president's "body man" and was seen working for him outside the Miami courthouse on the morning of Trump's arraignment.

Cannon has faced scrutiny in the past in previous cases related to Trump. It remains to be seen how Smith's team will proceed.>

<Another U.S. Supreme Court scandal is brewing in the wake of alleged corruption involving nearly every conservative member of the current Roberts Court, or their spouse.

The wife of Justice Samuel Alito leased a 160-acre Oklahoma property to an oil and gas firm while her husband wrote the recent majority opinion greatly restricting the work the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is allowed to do. Should that land produce oil and gas, Martha Ann Bomgardner Alito would earn just under a quarter of all revenue from that property, The Intercept reports.

“Last year, before the lease was activated, a line in Alito’s financial disclosures labeled ‘mineral interests’ was valued between $100,001 and $250,000. If extraction on the plot proves fruitful, the lease dictates that Citizen Energy will pay Alito’s wife 3/16ths of all the money it makes from oil and gas sales,” according to The Intercept. “Because Citizen Energy III isn’t implicated in any cases before the Supreme Court, Alito’s holding in Oklahoma doesn’t appear to pose any direct conflicts of interest. But it does add context to a political outlook that has alarmed environmentalists since Alito’s confirmation hearing in 2006 — and cast recent decisions that embolden the oil and gas industry in a damning light.”

It also poses ethics concerns.

“’There need not be a specific case involving the drilling rights associated with a specific plot of land for Alito to understand what outcomes in environmental cases would buttress his family’s net wealth,’ Jeff Hauser, founder and director of the Revolving Door Project, told The Intercept,” the news outlet’s Daniel Boguslaw reports. The Revolving Door Project says it “scrutinizes executive branch appointees to ensure they use their office to serve the broad public interest, rather than to entrench corporate power or seek personal advancement.”

Hauser added, “Alito does not have to come across like a drunken Paul Thomas Anderson character gleefully confessing to drinking our collective milkshakes in order to be a real life, run-of-the-mill political villain.”

His remarks did not end there.

On Twitter, Hauser wrote: “Sam Alito could choose to be invested solely in vanilla Vanguard or Fidelity investment funds. Instead, he and his wife cultivate conflicts of interest because he believes that he and his pals ARE the law. The latest? The Alitos are into natural gas production.”

This latest look at the financial dealings of the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court follows numerous reports, including decades of undisclosed luxury vacations gifted to Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas by a conservative billionaire megadonor, along with a generous real estate transaction for his mother’s home and an education for the couple’s grandnephew. Then there was Justice Samuel Alito taking an undisclosed Alaska vacation with a conservative billionaire who repeatedly had business before the court, and a free trip to Rome where he delivered a secret speech days after writing the majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. Justice Amy Coney Barrett having ties to the leader of the group that funded Alito’s Rome trip, including selling her personal home to “a recently hired Notre Dame professor who was assuming a leadership role” at that organization. Justice Neil Gorsuch selling land to the head of a law firm with cases before the Court, while not disclosing his name. And Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife making millions by placing attorneys into high-powered law firms that routinely have business before the Supreme Court.

Political and legislative strategist Murshed Zaheed, a senior advisor to Take Back The Court, responded to The Intercept’s report via Twitter, saying: “There appears to be no limit to the culture of corruption from the extreme right wing judges on the #SCOTUS. This is not sustainable if we want to have a functioning democracy. #expandSCOTUS.”>

<House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is considering launching an impeachment inquiry over Attorney General Merrick Garland's handling of the investigation into President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

McCarthy tweeted on Sunday that he wants Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney David Weiss to provide answers to the House Judiciary Committee regarding accusations made by two former IRS agents about Weiss' probe of the younger Biden, on which they worked.

"If the whistleblowers' allegations are true, this will be a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry into Merrick Garland's weaponization of DOJ," McCarthy wrote. (An inquiry would be a precursor to the House potentially voting on specific articles of impeachment on Garland.)

On Monday, McCarthy said on Fox News: "If it comes true what the IRS whistleblower is saying, we're going to start impeachment inquiries on the attorney general."

One of the whistleblowers, Gary Shapley, has claimed that during an Oct. 7, 2022, meeting at the Delaware U.S. attorney's office, Weiss said he did not have the ability to charge in other districts and unsuccessfully requested special counsel status from the Department of Justice.

Garland refuted that account last week.

"The only person with authority to make somebody a special counsel or refuse to make somebody a special counsel is the attorney general," he said. "Mr. Weiss never made that request to me."

Garland also told ABC News' Alexander Mallin that he would approve of Weiss speaking or testifying whenever he sees fit.

In a June 7 letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, Weiss wrote that Garland had granted him "ultimate authority" over the Hunter Biden investigation, "including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges."

On Monday, McCarthy referred on Fox News to a July 6 deadline set by Republicans for Weiss to answer the Judiciary Committee's questions before initiating an impeachment inquiry.

Weiss' office did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News on Monday.

Hunter Biden has agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanors for failing to pay federal income tax in 2017 and 2018. Under the deal, he would also enter into a pretrial diversion agreement to avoid prosecution on a felony gun charge, potentially ending the DOJ's yearslong probe of his conduct.>