<....It’s not clear whether he has a bank account.

Look, the 51-year-old Speaker of the House probably has a bank account. But he’s not telling us about it. As the Daily Beast reports, Johnson’s financial disclosure forms dating back to 2017 state that he does not have a savings or a checking account in his name, despite his $200,000 salary. Nor, according to the forms, does he have any investments or assets. Perhaps he’s just living as Jesus intended — though probably not, given the leeway he wants to give wealthy tax cheats.

He uses anti-porn monitoring software.

During a conversation on the “War on Technology” at Benton, Louisiana’s Cypress Baptist Church last year, Johnson advocated for the use of Covenant Eyes, a popular brand of “accountability software” marketed to parents and religious organizations to police online activities deemed inappropriate.

“It scans all the activity on your phone, or your devices, your laptop, what have you; we do all of it,” Johnson said, per Rolling Stone.

“It sends a report to your accountability partner. My accountability partner right now is Jack, my son. He’s 17. So he and I get a report about all the things that are on our phones, all of our devices, once a week. If anything objectionable comes up, your accountability partner gets an immediate notice. I’m proud to tell ya, my son has got a clean slate.”

Regardless of your opinion on how closely teens’ online activities should be monitored, this raises some obvious security concerns. When Wired tested Covenant Eyes and a similar service, Accountable2You, it found that in addition to scanning for pornography, the services take advantage of accessibility permissions to “either capture screenshots of everything actively being viewed on the device or detect the name of apps as they’re being used and record every website visited in the device’s browser.” So if he’s still using the service, the new Speaker is letting a third party tech company see and possibly record everything he’s doing on his devices.

He said America is “depraved and dark,” citing queer youth and lack of churchgoing.

Most examples of Johnson’s homophobic statements are pretty old, so maybe he’s changed his tune? Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case. In a prayer call with Christian-nationalist MAGA pastor Jim Garlow this fall, Johnson described America as almost irredeemably “depraved.” Why? Because more kids are openly queer and Americans aren’t attending church as much. Per Rolling Stone:

The segment was filmed Oct. 3, just weeks before Johnson’s unexpected rise to become speaker of the House. Garlow pressed the clean-cut Louisiana congressman to say “more about this ‘time of judgment’ for America.” Johnson replied: “The culture is so dark and depraved that it almost seems irredeemable.” He cited, as supposed evidence, the decline of national church attendance and the rise of LGBTQ youth — the fact, Johnson lamented, that “one-in-four high school students identifies as something other than straight.”

Johnson went on to invoke Sodom, the city destroyed by God for its wickedness in the Bible. Then he tearfully prayed “that You not give us the judgment that we clearly deserve.”>

<Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) isn't backing down after a conspiracy theory he promoted about a convicted Capitol rioter being a secret federal agent was quickly debunked.

NBC News on Monday questioned Lee about his promotion of a false claim made on social media alleging that convicted Capitol rioter Kevin Lyons supposedly flashed a badge while in the Capitol, indicating that he was actually a law enforcement official.

In reality, the object seen in Lyons' hand was a vape.

When asked about this by NBC News, a Lee spokesman deflected from the question and began to push more conspiracy theories about the January 6th riots at the Capitol.

"Senator Lee would like [FBI Director Christopher] Wray to answer important questions regarding the uncuffed rioter fist bumping Capitol police inside the building, the unidentified pipe bomber, and other individuals about whom the FBI and fraudulent January 6th Committee have shown a surprising lack of interest," they said.

However, NBC was quick to point out that the "fist bumping" Capitol rioter conspiracy theory had been debunked as well.

"The 'uncuffed rioter fist bumping Capitol police' is Jan. 6 Jared Luther Owens, who was charged last month," the report states. "Owens was one of several rioters who were released from custody on Jan. 6 because police officers were under violent attack at the Capitol, and did not have the resources to process the enormous number of rioters.

"Owens, a Trump supporter, allegedly assaulted law enforcement officers with a barricade on Jan. 6, and a Capitol Police officer arrested him after witnessing Owens "push another unidentified U.S. Capitol Police officer up against a wall" inside the Capitol, according to the FBI. A folding knife was found in Owens' right front pocket.">

<Former President Donald Trump is about to learn once again that the First Amendment, while sweeping in its protections of speech from government interference, isn’t absolute. Based on arguments at the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, it seems likely that the appellate court will at least partially reimpose a gag order against Trump in the federal election interference case. While the order would limit what Trump can say, it would allow others to speak the truth.

Last month, District Judge Tanya Chutkan imposed a limited gag order against the former president, which prohibited him from disparaging the court staff, the special prosecutor and his staff and likely future witnesses. The order was far narrower in scope than the one requested by prosecutors: Chutkan declined to include statements that Trump may make about Washington, the Justice Department in general, the federal government more broadly or the judge herself. Chutkan’s order struck a delicate balance between the First Amendment rights of a political candidate and the need to protect the administration of justice. As Chutkan noted, Trump’s “presidential candidacy does not give him carte blanche to vilify and implicitly encourage violence against public servants who are simply doing their job.”

Trump appealed the order, and the circuit court put it on hold while it considers the case. On Monday, a three-judge panel of appellate judges heard arguments about the gag order — and it didn’t go well for Trump. The judges appear very likely to uphold the order, while potentially limiting its scope.

Trump and his team focused on his speech rights and incorrectly asserted that, unlike every other person in this country, the former president possesses an “absolute freedom” to say what he wishes. This freedom, they argued, holds no matter how much he threatens court staff members, prosecutors or potential witnesses. The prosecution, understandably, focused on the need to protect the administration of justice broadly and those court employees, special counsel Jack Smith and his staff and possible witnesses.

Trump’s arguments, if accepted by the court, would essentially mean that a court would at least have to wait until there has been documented witness intimidation before imposing a gag order. Such a standard can’t be and isn’t the law. While we have never had a case exactly like this one, gag orders aren’t per se unconstitutional, and they are allowed when circumstances justify them, such as to prevent harassment of witnesses, prejudice of the jury or the publication of trade secrets or other confidential information....>

<.....While Trump and his supporters frame the gag order as silencing one man, this gag order would actually allow far more people to speak.

It is true that we have never seen a gag order like the one in this case. But we have never elected a president who sought to undermine the peaceful transfer of power and, allegedly, engage in crimes to do so. We have never had a former president who called prosecutors a “team of thugs.” We have never had a former president-turned-criminal defendant with an apparent history of testing the line when it comes to witness tampering.

When Trump, the criminal defendant, and yes, the political candidate, speaks, he attempts to silence others. A limited gag order would still allow him to vigorously defend himself in the legal and political spheres, yet crucially it would protect those who are called to testify. Trump is entitled to speak, and the public has the right to listen. But in a criminal case, his speech can — and must — be balanced against the public’s right to the fair administration of justice, which includes the ability of witnesses to testify free of threats and intimidation.

Gag orders should be narrowly tailored and imposed as a last resort, when they are basically the only way to allow the legal system to function fairly. Trump isn’t wrong in saying that when a gag order is placed on a political candidate, we need to tread carefully. Political speech stands at the apex of protected speech. And political speech targeted at government officials is just the type of speech the government would want to censor.

But Trump is wrong in saying that there is only one side of the scale to consider. Our democracy depends on the quaint idea that the rule of law still exists. The criminal justice system will crater if bullies can hide behind the First Amendment and intimidate those who keep the system working — court staff members and prosecutors. Similarly, criminal trials will become farces if defendants can merely intimidate witnesses into silence.

Limiting Trump’s speech is not just consistent with decades of judicial precedents. It is essential for this case to proceed in a timely and fair fashion. Only with a narrowly tailored gag order can Americans be confident that the eventual verdict, however the jury decides, will reflect the rule of law.>

<Donald Trump's electoral interference trial must be viewed in light of a landmark fraud case from more than 20 years ago, in which a court imposed a gag order on an elected official, appeal judges have said.

In a testy exchange in Washington D.C. on Monday, appeal court judges repeatedly told Trump's lawyer that the 2000 case of U.S. vs. Brown established that participants in a criminal trial have fewer free-speech rights than other Americans.

A federal court imposed a gag order on Louisiana state official Jim Brown after he told a press conference his fraud indictment was a "political drive-by shooting."

Trump was placed under a similar gag order after calling the chief prosecutor in his case "deranged" and publicly called on his former White House chief of staff not to testify against him.

Trump was indicted on four counts in Washington D.C. for allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

In the Washington D.C federal appeal court on Monday, Judge Cornelia Pillard repeatedly told Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, that a gag order was imposed on Brown and that normal free-speech rules do not apply in a criminal case.

She refused to accept Sauer's assertion that any American can say what they want, as long as their statements don't create a "clear and present danger" to others.

She demanded to know Sauer's "next best theory" and his "Plan B," as the Brown case had shown that the normal "clear and present danger" test established by the Supreme Court did not apply in criminal trials. She noted that, in Brown, an appeal court ruled that gag orders could be applied to participants in a criminal case.

Sauer had tried to assert that Trump's social media posts, in which he commented on potential witnesses in his electoral tampering case, did not amount to a clear and present danger to those witnesses or anyone else.

"It doesn't come close to the clear and present standard," he said.

Pillard repeatedly refused to accept that argument and demanded to know what alternatives arguments Sauer was willing to use.

Judge Brad Garcia also repeatedly questioned Sauer as to why a gag order should not be imposed in light of the Brown case.

The appeal panel will rule on the gag order at a later date.

The election interference trial judge, Tanya Chutkan, twice imposed a gag order on Trump to stop him commenting about potential witnesses, court staff and prosecutors.

That followed Trump's social media remarks about Mark Meadows, his former White House chief-of-staff, in which he pleaded with him not to be like the other "cowards" who were willing to testify.

At a political rally, Trump also said that the chief prosecutor, Special Counsel Jack Smith, was "deranged" and that Smith's family were Trump haters.

Trump is now challenging that gag order, which the appeal court has lifted while it hears arguments from prosecutors and Trump's lawyers.

Newsweek sought email comment on Tuesday from Trump's attorney.

Brown was the elected Insurance Commissioner for Louisiana. In September, 1999, Brown, along with five others, including former Louisiana Gov. Edwin W. Edwards, was indicted on counts of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, insurance fraud, making false statements, and witness tampering.

The charges all related to Brown's alleged use of his influence as insurance commissioner to help construct, along with Edwards and the other defendants, a "sham settlement" that derailed a $27-million lawsuit by the state against David Disiere, president of Cascade Insurance Co., a failed car insurance company.

In a news conference shortly after the indictment was issued, Brown declared his innocence as well as his belief that he was the victim of a "political drive-by shooting" at the hands of "an out-of-control prosecutor."

The trial court then imposed a gag order prohibiting parties, lawyers, and potential witnesses from giving "any extrajudicial statement or interview" about the trial.

Brown was acquitted of most charges, but served a 6-month federal sentence for lying to an FBI officer investigating the case. Edwards was acquitted of all charges.>

<A federal appeals court on Monday significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act in seven states, issuing a ruling that would effectively bar private citizens and civil rights organizations from filing lawsuits under a crucial provision of the landmark civil rights law, The New York Times reported.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that only the federal government could bring a legal challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The appellate court found that “only the attorney general of the United States may bring suit” to enforce the key section of the act.

Should it be upheld, the ruling would drastically weaken what remains of the Voting Rights Act, which was enacted in 1965 to combat racial discrimination in elections. “The absurdity and extremism of the ruling can be highlighted by posing simple questions: if neither pre-clearance nor private rights of action under Section 2 had been available during, say, the Reagan years, when the DOJ was hardly clamoring to enforce the VRA, how effective would the Act have been,” James Sample, a Hofstra University constitutional law professor, told Salon. “Similarly, how effective would leaving enforcement solely and exclusively to a Trump-appointed Attorney General be in, for example, the 2026 midterms?”

The ruling disrupts the traditional approach to challenging voting rules, where the majority of lawsuits are typically initiated by private voters or organizations like the NAACP or the ACLU. If the ruling is upheld, it has the potential to diminish the resources available to voters of color and voting rights advocates in safeguarding voting access for marginalized groups.

The current case revolves around a challenge initially filed by the Arkansas chapter of the NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel over a new voting map that took effect in December 2021. The plaintiffs said in their complaint that the newly drawn Arkansas House of Representatives district map diluted the strength of Black voters.

U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky, also a Trump appointee, ruled in early 2022 that he was unable to decide on the merits since there was no private right of action. The case may be brought only by the attorney general of the United States, Rudofsky wrote. On Monday, the circuit court affirmed that finding.

“The US Supreme Court has already made the Voting Rights Act Section 5 preclearance nearly impossible under Shelby County, and it has drastically curtailed what voter dilution means under Section 2 via the Brnovich decision,” David Schultz, professor of political science at Hamline University, told Salon.

These two cases alone make it tougher for the federal government to challenge state action, he added. It’s generally harder to identify a violation unless the state or local jurisdiction makes “sudden or abrupt changes” to voting procedures. In effect, the latter allows “slow gradual and small efforts” to make voting more difficult without being subject to legal action.

“Now this decision, if upheld, all but removes private causes of action to challenge VRA violations,” Schultz said. “This is despite decades of precedent that reaches a different conclusion. This is the danger of the textualism that many judges are using. They ignore a major feature of US law that text plus judicial opinion (precedent) is law. They ignore the latter.”....>

<.....The second and larger issue is that there is a “significant partisan divide” over voting rights now, he continued. In 2008, Schultz argued that we were beginning to witness the “second great disenfranchisement in American history” (the first after the Civil War and Reconstruction).

“The history of the expansion of voting rights in the US does not occur at the state level – historically only when one or more institutions or the federal government comes to the rescue,” Schultz said. “Divided government and partisan differences, and a possible long-term anti-voting rights Supreme Court is not a good recipe for more protection of voting rights, especially in those states with trifectas that support such rights.”

Currently, the decision only applies to the states that are covered by the 8th Circuit including Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. This means it will be more difficult to challenge voting regulations in these states before the 2024 election.

The opinion is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Perhaps this Supreme Court could consider claims related to 14th Amendment due process concerning voting rights, or even a new challenge under the 15th Amendment, but this is “a long shot,” Schultz explained.

“Even by the standards of the last decade – hardly a decade that has been kind to voting rights – the Eighth Circuit’s decision is an extreme outlier,” Sample said. “The decision is so extreme that even our contemporary, and historically radical, Supreme Court may seriously consider overturning it.”>

<Donald Trump's doctor on Monday released a glowing letter claiming that the former president's health is "excellent" and that he's recently shed a few pounds due to “an improved diet and continued daily physical activity," The Daily Beast reports. Dr. Bruce Aronwald, self-described as Trump's personal physician since 2021, said that the 77-year-old GOP frontrunner was "exceptional" in his cognitive exams. The doctor lists Sept. 13 as the day of Trump's check-up and omits specifics about his health, like his weight, blood pressure, cholesterol levels and current prescriptions.

The unanticipated letter, which the former president shared on Truth Social, follows a batch of his verbal slip-ups, including his appearing to confuse Joe Biden with Barack Obama on multiple occasions this fall and mixing up the names of foreign leaders. He also misstated the name of the city he was campaigning in during a speech last month, confusing it with a location in another state and having the correct name whispered into his ear.

Conservative commentator S.E. Cupp dismissed the letter during a CNN appearance, arguing that it was "no coincidence" that Trump published the letter on the 81st birthday of President Joe Biden, whose age and health have become a point of contention among both Republicans and Democrats. "That was propaganda. He released propaganda, right? We have seen no lab results,” she said, according to HuffPost. “We’ve seen nothing other than whatever he told this doctor to say. I also heard that [North Korean dictator] Kim Jong Un hit 11 holes in one. He says that so we should believe it right?” CNN's Jay Michaelson added that while Biden is "a little bit old," Trump is "a lying liar," and host Abby Phillips noted that the two 2024 presidential candidates are "not that far apart in age.">

<The struggle to keep the federal government open isn’t the only task exposing the deep dysfunction among House Republicans. Speaker Mike Johnson is also dealing with MAGA demands to impeach Joe Biden over shadowy allegations that he abused his office to benefit his family’s business ventures. Having deeply displeased members on his right flank by relying on Democratic votes to pass a stopgap spending measure, Johnson isn’t about to get in the way of their determination to go after the president on dubious charges, just as they believe Democrats did to their idol Donald Trump four years ago. It’s a particularly high priority for one of Johnson’s predecessors as Speaker nominee, Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

As Politico Playbook explains, the impeachment inquiry launched by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy in September is now headed towards a moment of truth in January:

As they continue their investigation into Joe Biden and family, House Republicans are working to tie up loose ends on its impeachment inquiry by the end of the year. Amid continued skepticism from GOP-centrists, the conference plans to depose Hunter Biden in December with proponents pushing for a vote on impeachment articles as early as January.

They could use a little more evidence of wrong-doing, Politico suggests:

Republicans would likely accuse the president of improperly using his political office to further his family’s business dealings — though they haven’t yet found a smoking gun to that effect and some members acknowledge that seems increasingly unlikely. Impeachment advocates are still probing other issues as well, such as the federal investigation that resulted in a failed plea deal for Hunter Biden.

“We get those depositions done this year and … then we can decide on whether or not there’s articles,” House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told POLITICO, predicting that decision would happen early next year. …

Republicans aren’t putting all their bets on the one basket. They’ve hinted that they could also draw obstruction allegations into the impeachment articles, citing any refusal by the Biden administration to cooperate.

If they choose to follow the precedent set by Nancy Pelosi leading up to Trump’s first impeachment in December 2019, House Republicans will need a preliminary vote of the full House to set formal rules and procedures for impeachment. Both then and in any subsequent vote on articles of impeachment recommended by the Judiciary Committee, the GOP would need to utilize their four-vote majority to the fullest. That’s very unlikely. Eighteen House Republicans are in districts that Biden carried in 2020; voting for his impeachment could make some of them sitting ducks, and conversely, splitting with their party on impeachment might be just what the political doctor ordered.

So while MAGA congressmen are excitedly anticipating formal impeachment proceedings as a New Year’s treat, other Republicans may simply be hoping to quickly get to the point where would-be impeachers can see they don’t have the votes, and agree to fold their fulminations about the “Biden crime family” into the 2024 pro-Trump messaging they are already promoting. Needless to say, if articles of impeachment somehow do make it through the House, they will be DOA in the Democratic Senate, where a two-thirds vote would be necessary to secure a conviction. If Trump wasn’t convicted in 2021 after publicly leading an insurrection in full view of the world, Biden certainly is safe barring some really shocking revelations.>

<Turns out grinding the government to a halt during a time of global crisis to flex power over your colleagues doesn’t go over super well with the viewers back home.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is experiencing some political repercussions for dumping gasoline on his fractured party’s descent into dysfunction when he ousted House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) for the sin of keeping the government open. While the congressman is still popular in his Panhandle home district, his standing in Florida overall is in a state of disrepair.

The Florida Atlantic University Mainstreet PolCom Lab released the results of statewide polling it conducted between Oct. 27 and Nov. 11 last week. It found that 57 percent of Florida voters are unhappy with Gaetz’s job as a congressman. That means that just 21 percent of voters surveyed approved of the congressman’s performance in Washington. About eight percent were “neutral” and 14 percent indicated they didn’t know how they felt, per the poll results.

When broken down by party, his approval rating is only a little less bleak. Among Democrats surveyed, almost 83 percent said they disapprove of the professional antagonist. But among Republicans, 36.3 percent disapprove of the congressman, with just 36.6 percent approving of his “work.” That’s less than the percentage of Republicans who responded to the same survey saying they approved of the decision to remove McCarthy as speaker — 42 percent. The Florida Atlantic University poll surveyed just under 1,000 Florida voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%.

While Gaetz’s popularity in his home district is holding steady, his statewide disapproval follows news that the Republican may be interested in running for governor in 2026 when Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is term-limited out of the governor’s mansion. NBC News reported in September that the congressman was “100 percent in” on a potential 2026 bid. Gaetz has denied that reporting, offering only that his sole “political focus right now is Trump 2024.”>

<Christian Nationalists were out in force at Mar-a-Lago on Friday night, once again demonstrating their proximity to MAGA power.

Lance Wallnau - the chief promoter of a "Seven Mountains Mandate" for right-wing Christians to seize control over government and culture - was dressed in a tux and streaming live to his 1 million Facebook followers. The black-tie event was the America First Policy Institute gala at Trump's Palm Beach estate, where the former president was soon to speak.

As he filmed with his cell phone, Wallnau grabbed co-religionist Jim Garlow - the MAGA pastor with whom now-House Speaker Mike Johnson recently prayed to spare a "depraved" America from the "judgment that we clearly deserve." Both religious figures are associated with an evangelical movement called the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, which has an unusual obsession with earthly power. The duo engaged in jocular banter during the stream on Friday: "You can read about you in the news lately," Wallnau ribbed Garlow, referring to Rolling Stone's coverage of the pastor's prayer call with Johnson. Garlow rejoined: "It's because we're dangerous - what do they call us? - ‘Christian nationalists.'"

Garlow at first mocked the media attention, saying he was "disappointed they didn't call us Christian internationalists" - reflecting the global ambition of his quest for right-wing Christian dominion. But then Garlow played the victim: "The phrase ‘Christian nationalist' has one purpose," he insisted. "And that is simply to bully Christians - to intimidate, silence them so they will not be involved governmentally." Garlow then claimed that this was done in the service of satanic forces, "so The Enemy can have his way and destroy the country."

The fact that Garlow and Wallnau were palling around in tuxedos at Mar-a-Lago the same week that their religious movement made national news for its troubling reach into the highest ranks of elected Republican politics, was itself another remarkable sign of that influence. Wallnau shared that Garlow's online prayer partner - who has credited the pastor as a "profound influence" on both his life and his "walk with Christ" - was also in attendance. "Mike Johnson is here tonight," Wallnau said. "I want to hear Mike Johnson. He's under attack because he's such an outspoken Christian." (Rolling Stone could not independently confirm Johnson's attendance at Mar-a-Lago. The Speaker's spokesperson did not respond to multiple requests.)

In his banter with Wallnau, Garlow certainly did not distance himself from a Christian nationalist ideology. In fact, he underscored his belief that Christians are meant to be in control - to advance the Kingdom of God across the planet. Garlow even advised Americans to break up with their pastors if the religious leaders don't use the pulpit to advance "the issues that God has commanded us to." Garlow explained: "We don't just ‘preach Jesus.' We preach what Jesus preached. He preached the Kingdom … What's the King over? Everything. Everything. Including the governmental and political realm."

The Friday evening gala at Mar-a-Lago was the culminating party of a three-day conference held by America First Policy Institute. AFPI exists to formulate policy for what MAGA-world anticipates will be a second Trump term. AFPI's leaders include past bigwigs from the Trump administration like chair Linda McMahon, a former Trump cabinet member, and CEO Brooke Rollins, who served as Director of the Domestic Policy Council in the Trump White House.

Other AFPI leadership include executive director Chad Wolf, who was the illicit acting Homeland Security chief when the Trump administration battled protestors in the streets of Portland; far-right economist Larry Kudlow; and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who addressed the AFPI conference on day one."....>

<.....AFPI's gathering featured a strong Christianist undercurrent. Paula White Cain - a top religious influencer in Trump's circle - led prayer and scripture at an AFPI "Ladies" event, later posting on Instagram: "God moved at our prayer breakfast ." Televangelist Jentezen Franklin, whose broadcast is called Kingdom Connection, was honored, along with his wife, with AFPI's 2023 Patriot award.

In fact, right-wing religion seems to be woven through the DNA of AFPI. The group's chief digital officer is Adam W. Schindler. Schindler is also a pastor who works closely with Garlow; they co-founded the World Prayer Network, which hosted the call where Mike Johnson decried the rise of LGBTQ children as evidence of America's "dark" and nearly "irredeemable" culture. AFPI has also championed Johnson's rise to speaker. Rollins, the CEO, wrote a Newsweek op-ed praising Johnson's selection, calling him "indefatigably optimistic." Rolling Stone sought interviews with Garlow, Wallnau, and Rollins; none responded. Schindler emailed that he is "proud to work at AFPI and support the work we do there."

As the MAGA movement seeks a return to the White House, religious extremism is no longer marginalized. It is now baked into the cake. The AFPI conference proceedings included an appearance from Christian nationalist Charlie Kirk, of Turning Point USA. Self-proclaimed Christian nationalist congress member Marjorie Taylor Greene was also in attendance at the gala.

There were secular elements, too, including a performance by country star Wynonna Judd. Boldface MAGA names included former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz, former Trump spokesperson Kellyanne Conway, and former acting attorney general (and well-endowed-man toilet promoter) Matt Whitaker. Rollins described the gala night as "The most magical evening … with 700 closest friends, supporters, and partners."

Following the festivities, Wallnau emerged to film a new Facebook Live video. "We finished with our meeting with Trump," he said before praising the former president's speech in front of the crowd at his club, which has not been posted online: "Vintage Donald Trump tonight. I mean: Focused, funny." Hailing Trump as a beacon of competence, Wallnau continued, "I swear, if God wants to have mercy on America, this guy will have four more years."

"Without him," Wallnau continued, warning of God's wrath, "the sheer stupidity of the leadership decisions that are happening is a form of judgment. It's like having an imbecilic spirit on the country that self destructs. No one else is destroying us," Wallnau explained. "We're destroying ourselves."

But the Christian nationalist was not all doom and gloom. Wallnau predicted that a "powerful move of God is coming for America." He added that in 2024: "I believe God is gonna cause America to rise up.">

<Donald Trump had his worst day yet in his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York on Tuesday, and at the hands of his own key witness, a former Trump Organization executive who linked the former president directly to the fuzzy math at the center of the case.

The witness was Jeffrey McConney, Trump Org's ex-comptroller and spreadsheet czar. McConney had been called to the witness stand by the defense, but on cross-examination by lawyers for the state attorney general's office Tuesday, he linked Trump firmly to the conspiracy and fraud counts that have yet to be decided in the non-jury trial.

McConney was handed People's Exhibit 3054, a draft of Trump's net-worth statement for 2014. He was asked to look at his own scribbled note, "DJT TO GET FINAL REVIEW," which he'd written in thin blue ink on the draft's first page.

Trump has denied involvement in preparing a decade's worth of these annual net-worth statements, which New York Attorney General Letitia James has alleged – and the trial judge has agreed – were each year riddled with billions of dollars of exaggerations.

The particular net-worth statement that McConney was handed the draft for, from 2014, contained $3.5 billion in exaggerations, the AG has alleged.

"Donald Trump would get final review?" the state's lawyer, Andrew Amer, asked McConney.

"That was my understanding, yes," McConney answered from the witness stand, his voice gruff.

Amer asked next if Trump would get final review of every net-worth statement until leaving for the White House in 2017, after which Eric Trump would approve the drafts.

"That was my understanding, yes," McConney answered again. Asked if that was his handwriting on the drafts – his thin blue pen marks – McConney also said yes, it was.

McConney's testimony was significant for several reasons, and not just for the damage it did to Trump, but to Trump's two eldest sons, to former Trump Org CFO Allen Weisselberg, and to himself as well.

The three Trumps and the two ex-executives are all defendants in the AG's lawsuit, which alleges that Trump used net-worth exaggerations to win hundreds of millions of dollars in interest-rate discounts and property-sale profits. James is seeking at least $250 million in penalties, and to ban the five defendants from ever running a New York business again.

Starting with the damage to McConney himself, his blue-ink notations directly contradict his testimony from the prior day.

The spreadsheet czar had testified on direct examination Monday that he would review each year's draft net-worth statement with then-CFO Weisselberg, who would then give the approved draft to the outside accounting firm, Mazars USA, which would print the final statement.

This chain of command — McConney to Weisselberg to Mazars — leaves out one very important link, the state's lawyer, Amer, pointed out on cross on Tuesday.

"I believe there was a step in between, that involved Donald Trump, prior to 2017?" Amer asked McConney, who appeared uncomfortable on the stand as he admitted that Trump indeed did the ultimate signing off....>

<.....Trump, who has not attended the trial for the past two weeks, had claimed on the witness stand on Nov. 6 that he had little involvement in the drafting of these net-worth statements. And in a pre-trial deposition, he denied knowing who had written, "DJT to get final review" on that 2014 draft.

But McConney's blue-ink handwriting is all over the net-worth statement drafts, showing he revised language and even added cautionary notes that were then passed along for Trump's "final review," according to McConney's own description of the drafting process.

In one key cautionary note from the 2015, draft, McConney made a notation in ink that, "This computation also includes forecasted deals that have not signed yet." In the note, McConney was suggesting Trump forego including some $151 million in fictional assets in the net-worth statement, arguing that these deals "have not signed yet."

The final version of that year's net-worth statement shows McConney's suggestion was ignored, possibly by Trump himself. The AG alleges that Trump routinely padded out his net-worth statements with these same sorts of non-existent assets.

McConney's many notes show that it was Trump and his top executives who made the last edits and then signed off on these net-worth statements. As such, the notes do serious damage to the primary Trump defense: blame Mazars, blame the accountants.

The attorney general's office also appears poised to argue that these handwritten notes show McConney, Weisselberg, and Trump intentionally conspired in cooking the numbers each year. Intent and conspiracy are two elements that must be proven for the attorney general to win all six of the yet-decided counts in the case.

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron has already found, pretrial, that Trump's 2014 through 2021 statements fraudulently inflated his wealth.

The trial will determine if the five defendants further broke six specific state laws: falsifying business records, filing false financial statements, insurance fraud, and conspiracy to commit each of these counts. These six counts all require proof that the frauds and falsehoods were committed intentionally.

Since the case is civil, not criminal, the judge will not issue a "guilty" verdict. Instead his verdict will find if the five defendants are "liable" for monetary and other penalties for violating these six laws.

The fact that these incriminating, hand-scrawled drafts were turned over to authorities by Mazars, but not by the Trump Organization, could come up at the end of the trial as evidence that Trump's side failed to retain and turn over documents as required by state subpoenas.

McConney's cross-examination came minutes after a dramatic, tearful conclusion to his direct testimony.

The longtime Trump executive became weepy in answering the final question from defense lawyer Jesus Suarez, who asked why he'd left the Trump Organization after 35 years working there.

He left to "stop being accused of misrepresenting assets for the company that I loved working for," he said, wiping away tears as he described a history of being subpoenaed on the federal and state level in connection with the Trump Organization.

"It was like working with family," he said. "I feel proud of what I did."

The trial continues on Monday with testimony expected by the chief accounting officer for Trump Hotels, Mark Hawthorn. It will be the ninth week of trial, and the third week of the defense case.>

<The security surveillance dump announced this week that many Republicans claim will show the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was a mostly peaceful affair is about to blow up in their faces, an analyst wrote Wednesday.

Writing for Salon, Amanda Marcotte says the tactic of releasing the footage as an attempt to absolve those who participated "doesn't seem like the smartest electoral strategy."

"But the GOP now is primarily composed of professional trolls who cannot turn down an opportunity to spew noxious gases online," she writes. "Sure enough, some of the most annoying people in Congress tweeted conspiracy theories about the footage in language so fevered you could practically hear them panting as they typed."

Marcotte also points to a tweet from Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee, in which he shared a picture of a convicted rioter who he claimed was an undercover federal agent — a claim that was easily debunked by NBC News reporter Ryan Reilly.

Marcotte also points out that Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene shared Lee's tweet, but later deleted it after it was shown to be fake. Lee, nevertheless, doubled down on the claim.

"We know Lee is lying because, while Lee may not be the smartest man, almost no one is stupid enough to believe this 'FBI did it' conspiracy theory," Marcotte writes, adding that the point of these conspiracy theories, "Is not to believe them, but to sucker liberals into go-nowhere arguments with disingenuous actors."

"The end game is to overwhelm their opposition with so many lies and bizarre digressions that people eventually just get exhausted and give up.">

Show us some more faux choler, <fredthestalker>.

<Donald Trump's lawyer made a mistake by speaking over judges during his gag order appeal, an attorney has said.

In October, Judge Tanya Chutkan entered a gag order against the former president in his federal election interference case, preventing him from criticizing potential trial witnesses and others involved in the case on social media after he made a number of comments, including calling Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges against him, a "deranged lunatic" and a "thug."

Donald Trump's Lawyer Made One Big Courtroom Mistake

The gag order allowed him instead to only discuss the case, which is one of two in which the Republican is accused of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election, charges he has denied, in general terms. Trump has denied any wrongdoing repeatedly and framed the case as part of a "witch hunt" against him.

Trump appealed the gag order to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, arguing the order unconstitutionally infringed on his right to free speech while he campaigns to be re-elected as president next year. The order was paused while he appealed.

During Monday's hearing, in which no decision was made, Trump's lawyer John Sauer argued that prosecutors had not provided enough evidence to warrant a gag order, for instance by showing Trump's statements directly led to threats to witnesses.

"The order is unprecedented, and it sets a terrible precedent on future restrictions on core political speech," Sauer said.

Writing on Substack, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance said he also interrupted the judges, all Democratic nominees, Bradley Garcia, Patricia Millet and Cornelia Pillard, on several occasions, calling it "a bad look... that is often a prelude to disaster."

Newsweek contacted Sauer by email to comment on this story.

She wrote: "As a young appellate lawyer, one of the first things I was taught was to never speak over a judge. If a judge interrupted with a question, you stopped, listened, and answered. Respectfully. I passed that wisdom on to all of the new lawyers in my appellate division when I became the chief. It serves well.

"We call these proceedings 'argument' because they are meant to fully air the positions the parties are taking, their relative merits, and their flaws—not because the lawyers are arguing with the judges. But we saw a fair bit of that today, with Trump's lawyer often trying to continue speaking or speak over a judge who injected a question. That's a bad look for an appellate lawyer, and an approach that is often a prelude to disaster."

It is not clear when the court will issue a ruling on the case, but according to multiple reports, judges signaled with their statements that they may narrow the scope of the order while keeping it in place. If the judges rule against Trump, he can appeal the gag order to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Trump's election interference case is set to go to trial in Washington in March 2024. He is also facing a criminal trial in Georgia for alleged interference in the 2020 election and a criminal trial in New York over alleged hush money payments to the adult film star, Stormy Daniels.>

You do understand the meaning of 'decorum', do you not, <heartlandvm>?

<The gag order on Donald Trump imposed by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in his election interference case is likely to be extended by a three-judge panel during a hearing on Monday, according to a prominent legal expert, which could also strengthen her ability to enforce it.

Chutkan imposed the order in October banning Trump from targeting court staff, special counsel Jack Smith and his team or potential witnesses. The order was briefly lifted following an appeal from Trump's legal team before being reimposed almost immediately after the former president used the time to hit out at Mark Meadows on Truth Social, following reports he will be granted immunity to testify before the grand jury.

In the case being overseen by Chutkan, Trump has pleaded not guilty to four charges: conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. All four relate to claims Trump broke the law attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election result, which he continues to baselessly insist was rigged against him despite this claim being repeatedly rejected in court.

Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama turned MSNBC legal commentator, discussed Chutkan's gag order on Trump on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday.

She wrote: "If, as seems likely after oral argument to a 3-judge panel, the DC Circuit Court affirms Trump's gag order at least in part, it will also be endorsing Judge Chutkan's ability to enforce it if Trump violates the order as trial draws closer.

"Trump would do well to take note and restrain himself if this happens. But there is little doubt that he will continue to try and exploit the situation politically, while pushing to delay trial until after the election. We are, as we frequently note, in uncharted waters.

"That there's little precedent involving a presidential candidate who threatens judges, prosecutors, witnesses & others while indicted underlines just how bizarre & reckless Trump's conduct is—in other words, why there needs to be a protective order."

Trump's legal team is seeking to overturn the gag order in its entirety, a position described as "extreme" by former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

In a post on X, he said: "Trump's lawyer is deliberately taking an extreme position. The judges are considering whether to modify Judge Chutkan's gag order or if she could make factual findings to support her order. Trump's lawyer doesn't want the order modified. He wants to fight the order as-is."

Newsweek reached out to Donald Trump for comment via the press inquiry form on his official website.

Trump had also been subject to a gag order banning him from criticizing court officials in his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York, but this was lifted by a state intermediate appeals court on November 16.

While the order was in place, Trump was fined twice, coming to a total of $15,000, for breaking it. Trump, his adult sons and the Trump Organization are accused of fraudulently inflating their assets to receive more favorable bank loans, though as the trial is civil, there is no prospect of any of the defendants facing prison if convicted.>

<A number of Republican senators are raising alarm over a recent personnel decision reassigning a high-ranking intelligence official within a Department of Energy office.

Led by Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), GOP lawmakers are seeking answers from Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on the reassignment of Steven Black — a long-serving director at the DOE’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. The senators said the reassignment happened “suddenly and without explanation” when they received word of the transition Oct. 17.

The lawmakers also referenced “deeply concerning” findings from an outside contractor study that outlined the state of counterintelligence across the department and national laboratories. The senators requested that the agency refrain from reassigning Black to any department office that focuses on national security missions if, during his tenure, there were “serious shortcomings” regarding counterintelligence.

“As you are well aware, the Department of Energy and the research it supports, especially at the national laboratories, is among the most important national security work undertaken by this country,” the senators wrote in a letter. “The findings in the contractor study, which Congress requested, are deeply concerning.”

It is unclear which contractor report the senators are referring to, what the findings of the report were, and how they may relate to Black.

Along with Risch, the letter was signed by Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member John Barrasso (R-WY), Intelligence Committee ranking member Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Jerry Moran (R-KS), John Cornyn (R-TX), and James Lankford (R-OK).

In the letter, the senators asked for immediate answers regarding why Black was reassigned from his role, and whether the findings outlined in the study influenced the decision to transition him to become a senior adviser within the department. The senators are probing into when DOE was made aware of the study and whether Granholm agrees with the findings of the report. They also are asking which part of the department Black will be serving his new role under.

Black, who was appointed director of the agency during the Obama administration, served in his role for more than 12 years. His LinkedIn page still notes his director position as his occupation and does not reference any “senior advisor” position for the DOE. Previously, he was the chief operating officer for the National Nuclear Security Administration from 2001 to 2011.

A spokesperson for the Department of Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.>

She is a Democrat, silly:

<The newly elected liberal justice on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court found herself in the spotlight Tuesday as a hearing over a lawsuit aiming to redraw the state’s legislative maps turned testy.

The Wisconsin high court heard oral arguments in a legal challenge over the state’s maps that was filed by Democratic voters just one day after liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz kicked off her term. The lawsuit argues the state’s legislative lines are “unconstitutional” and “extreme partisan gerrymanders that violate multiple provisions” of the state Constitution, and it urges for the entire legislative map to be redrawn.

But shortly after oral arguments started, Protasiewicz became the topic of discussion during oral arguments, which at times grew contentious as justices grilled attorneys on both sides.

“Everybody knows that the reason we’re here is because there was a change in the membership of the court. You would not have brought this action, right, if the newest justice had lost her election,” conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley argued to Mark Gaber, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“No, your honor, that — that’s not right,” Gaber responded.

“Law Forward [Wisconsin] actually announced to the media in April after the justice’s election that they would be bringing this very case before the court, and wasn’t that based on that justice’s pronouncements about the maps being ‘rigged?’” Bradley pressed again.

Gaber again pushed back, saying, “No, your honor, I don’t think anyone said that this case would not be brought, which is, I think, the premise of your question.”

Protasiewicz won her election in April to fill a vacancy on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, creating a liberal majority on the high court for the first time in 15 years. She garnered criticism from Republicans when she said during a candidate forum that the state’s maps were “rigged.”

“Let’s be clear here — the maps are rigged, bottom line. Absolutely, positively rigged. They do not reflect the people in this state,” Protasiewicz said during the forum, without saying how she would rule over a potential case.

“They do not reflect accurate representation, neither the state Assembly or the state Senate. They are rigged, period. Coming right out and saying that. I don’t think you could sell to any reasonable person that the maps are fair,” she continued.

Republicans mulled impeaching Protasiewicz in the event that she did not recuse herself from hearing redistricting cases on the high court, though several former justices have argued against pursuing such an effort....>

<.....Just one day after Protasiewicz was sworn in, Democratic voters filed the lawsuit aiming to redraw the state’s election maps. Their lawsuit argued the state’s maps as they stand violate the state Constitution because 21 state Senate districts and 55 Assembly districts are noncontiguous, meaning those districts include pockets of land that are not connected to the rest of the district.

The lawsuit also argues that “the maps violate the Constitution’s separation of powers” because the state’s high court last time “imposed the precise maps the Governor vetoed — a veto that the legislature failed to override.”

The hearing at times grew tense as justices grilled attorneys on issues such as how to achieve fair and neutral maps and over their particular definitions.

“What’s an acceptable number of Republican-leaning seats in your view?” conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn pressed Assistant Attorney General Anthony Russomanno.

“Well, your Honor, there’s no line … particular line needs to be drawn. So in this situation where the court would be creating the map and then looking at or looking at proposals, perhaps, and comparing those proposals, it would just be relative,” Russomano said, after being pressed several times.

“So it’d be is this map showing partisan bias more than this map is showing person bias?” Russomano added.

Meanwhile, liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet pressed Taylor Meehan, representing the GOP-led state Legislature, over her description of the state’s legislative map.

“Forty-five of the 99 Assembly districts, as best I can tell, do not have any municipal islands,” Meehan said before Dallet interjected, “so, only 45 of the 99 Assembly districts are contiguous.”

“No, your honor, and I’m looking forward to getting to my argument that they are — all the districts are contiguous. I really do think we have the better of the text in history. Forty-five do not have any alleged islands,” Meehan added, before the liberal justice interjected to say “detached territory, they’re not islands.”

While the redistricting case does not impact Wisconsin’s congressional maps, the potential to redraw all 132 state Senate and Assembly districts could impact Republicans’ hold in the state Capitol. Republicans currently enjoy clear edges in both chambers, with a 22-11 edge in the Senate and 64-35 in the Assembly.

Ahead of the hearing on Tuesday, Heather Williams, the interim president for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), said in a statement that the high court was “long overdue in taking up this case.”

“Wisconsin is one of the worst gerrymandered states in the country and Republicans have robbed voters of true representation for far too long. From an unfair balance in the state legislature to seats in Congress, the path to righting this wrong is clear: if Democrats want progress on redistricting, fair election administration, and expanded voting rights, we must invest in the states,” she said.

A decision is projected by early next year at the latest by the high court over the state’s legislative maps, according to The Associated Press.>

<Right-wing justices on the U.S. Supreme Court haven't outright overturned the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson 58 years ago. But they have been gradually chipping away at and undermining it.

The Voting Rights Act has also been under attack from right-wing judges in the lower federal courts via various cases. One such ruling recently came in the case Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Public Policy Panel.

In that case, Slate's Jay Willis reports, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit "reached the novel conclusion that only the federal government — specifically, the attorney general — can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act."

The opinion was written by a Donald Trump appointee (David Stras) and a George W. Bush appointee (Raymond Gruender).

"Stras' opinion, if the Supreme Court allows it to stand, is as disastrous for the future of multiracial democracy as it is useful to the conservative legal movement's policy agenda," Willis explains in an article published on November 21. "Private parties have used Section 2 to bring just about every voting rights case in recent memory. That has been especially true since 2013, when the court in Shelby County v. Holder effectively invalidated Section 5 of the act, which had, until then, been its most robust enforcement mechanism, requiring Department of Justice preclearance to voting changes in certain jurisdictions."

Willis notes that the case is "likely to make its way to the Supreme Court," and he expects Justice Clarence Thomas — a dissenter in Allen v. Milligan — to agree with the Stras/Gruender ruling. Allen v. Milligan was the 5-4 Roberts Court ruling that struck down a GOP-designed congressional map in Alabama as discriminatory against Black voters. And Thomas, Willis argues, "has spent his entire career working to hollow out the (Voting Rights) Act."

"The good news…. is that I do not think Stras' argument will find a receptive audience," Willis predicts. "Thomas might like it, and perhaps Justice Neil Gorsuch, who included a similar just-asking-questions line about Section 2 in….. Brnovich v. DNC two years ago. Given how many glowing headlines Roberts and company earned from Allen v. Milligan, though, I sort of doubt that the Court allows two random appeals court judges to rewrite civil rights law in the graven image of Kris Kobach.">

<Trump's plans for remaking the government in his own image with a second term are truly terrifying, a number of legal experts and former government officials warn The Guardian — including the former inspector general for the Department of Justice.

“The plans being developed by members of Trump’s cult to turn the DoJ and FBI into instruments of his revenge should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares about the rule of law,” said Michael Bromwich. “Trump and rightwing media have planted in fertile soil the seed that the current Department of Justice has been politicized, and the myth has flourished. Their attempts to undermine DoJ and the FBI are among the most destructive campaigns they have conducted.”

Trump has vowed to use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies if re-elected. He also plans to replace the entire civil service with loyalists, end the independence of agencies like the FCC, and repeal longstanding bans on the president "impounding," or personally withholding congressionally appropriated money from, disfavored agencies, essentially weaponizing the entire federal government to get revenge on enemies.

This, combined with his rhetoric about eradicating "vermin" from American politics, has even more political experts than just former IG Bromwich worried.

“I’m hard pressed to find any candidates anywhere who are so open that they would use the power of the state to go after critics and enemies,” said Harvard political scientist and authoritarianism expert Steven Levitsky. “This is one of the most openly authoritarian campaigns I’ve ever seen. You have to go back to the far-right authoritarians in the 1930s in Europe or in 1970s Latin America to find the kind of dehumanizing and violent language that Trump is starting to consistently use.”

Former George H.W. Bush administration deputy attorney general Donald Ayer agreed, saying, “It is appalling that a presidential candidate could suggest using the Department of Justice to go after his political adversaries, to go after Biden and his family, and to effectively make the Department of Justice an arm of the White House to be used for its political purposes.”

All of this comes as a group of conservative legal activists, alarmed at how the current Republican legal establishment is coalescing behind Trump, has founded a new organization, the Society for the Rule of Law Institute, to resist GOP extremism.>

This is <your> leader, <vm>!

<American Compass is a right-wing nonprofit that, according to the Daily Beast, has been connected to Project 2025 — MAGA Republicans' radical plan to fill the federal government with unquestioning Donald Trump loyalists if he wins the 2024 GOP presidential nomination and defeats Democratic incumbent President Joe Biden in the general election.

The Daily Beast's Roger Sollenberger, in an article published on November 22, reports that a 2022 tax statement reveals who some of American Compass' donors are — and they include groups associated with liberal and progressive causes.

"The page header says, 'Do Not File' and 'Not Open to Public Inspection,' indicating the donors may have been accidentally disclosed," Sollenberger explains. "Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes — the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation."

Sollenberger adds, "According to the tax statement, the Omidyar Network has contributed a total of $400,000 to American Compass since 2020. In reality, Omidyar has donated $500,000, including forthcoming installments. The Hewlett Foundation — a longtime supporter of National Public Radio — has accounted for more than one-third of American Compass' total public support, giving a combined $1,486,000 over the same period, with an extra $475,000 dose this January. That's more than Hewlett gave to NPR or the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in the same timeframe."

The Omidyar and Hewlett donations, Sollenberger emphasizes, are "striking" in light of American Compass' connection to Project 2025.

The reporter notes, "Project 2025 backers include xenophobic Trump advisers Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, as well as Christian nationalist and former Trump budget chief Russ Vought, one of the group's top advisers. According to The Washington Post, Project 2025 has been crafting 'specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents,' with Trump himself 'naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute.' The group is also 'drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations,' the Post reported.">

Waiting for my favourite <stalker> to come calling....