<[Event "1st BCC Master-Expert Invitational"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1986.02.??"]
[EventDate "1986"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Stopa, John"]
[Black "Lyman, Harry"]
[ECO "C55"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "95th US Open"]
[Site "Rosemont IL"]
[Date "1994.??.??]]
[EventDate "1994"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Curdo, John"]
[Black "Calton, Bill J"]
[ECO "B12"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "95th US Open"]
[Site "Rosemont IL"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[EventDate "1994"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Curdo, John"]
[Black "Burke, John S"]
[ECO "B31"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.c3 Bg7 5.O-O e5 6.d4 cxd4 7.cxd4 Nxd4 8.Nxd4 exd4 9.e5 Ne7 10.Bg5 O-O 11.Re1 h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Nf5 14.Nd2 Nxg3 15.hxg3 d6 16.exd6 Qxd6 17.Bd3 Bd7 18.Nc4 Qd5 19.Ne3 Qa5 20.b4 Qxb4 21.Nd5 Qd6 22.Ne7+ Kh8 23.Qe2 Rae8 24.g4 Qf4 25.Bc2 Rxe7 26.Qxe7 Bc6 27.Qe2 Kg8 28.Rad1 Re8 29.Qd3 Rxe1+ 30.Rxe1 Qxg4 31.f3 Qg3 32.Re2 a6 33.Qh7+ Kf8 34.Qf5 Qc7 35.Qc5+ Kg8 36.Re8+ Bxe8 37.Qxc7 1-0>

Source tag? What source tag?

<[Event "95th US Open"]
[Site "Rosemont IL"]
[Date "1994.08.08"]
[EventDate "1994"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Curdo, John"]
[Black "Buehl, Walter M"]
[ECO "B52"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Framingham CC Championship"] [Site "Framingham Mass"]
[Date "1988.??.??"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Sarkisian, Drew"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "A40"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<The two Georgia election workers who won a $148 million defamation case against Rudy Giuliani will likely be called as witnesses in Donald Trump's election fraud case, a law professor has said.

The prosecutors in Trump's election fraud case signaled on December 5 that they intended to introduce evidence about election workers Ruby Freeman and Sheye Moss.

"Make no mistake. This huge verdict for Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss is a sign of how things will go for Trump before a jury—when these two American heroes are likely to be prosecution witnesses for Jack Smith and the Department of Justice," Ryan Goodman wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

Goodman is a former special counsel at the Department of Defense and is now a New York University law professor.

On December 5, prosecutors filing in a D.C. court claimed that Trump continued to target Freeman and Moss even after they were the subject of "vile and racist" threats from his supporters.

Trump listed Freeman as being among the "monsters" who had stolen the 2020 election and "doubled down" on his attacks after the pair testified before the January 6 committee, court filings state.

Freeman and Moss were falsely accused of using suitcases of ballots to add votes for President Joe Biden at an Atlanta voting center during the 2020 presidential election.

"Long after the charged conduct, the defendant continued to falsely attack two Georgia election workers, despite being on notice that his claims about them in 2020 were false and had subjected them to vile, racist, and violent threats and harassment," Senior Assistant Special Counsel Molly Gaston wrote in a nine-page court filing that was filed on behalf of Smith on December 5.

In her submission, Gaston said Freeman and Moss gave "graphic testimony" to the January 6 committee "about the threats and harassment they endured after the defendant and his agents falsely accused them."

"In apparent response, the defendant then doubled down and recommenced his attacks on the election workers in posts on Truth Social," Gaston wrote. "He even zeroed in on one of the election workers, falsely writing that she was an election fraudster, a liar, and one of the 'treacher[ous...]monsters' who stole the country, and that she would be in legal trouble."

On December 15, a D.C. jury ordered Giuliani to pay Freeman and Moss $148 million for defamation.

Giuliani was previously found to have falsely claimed the pair committed election fraud while counting 2020 ballots in Fulton County.

The inclusion of Freeman and Moss could bolster the Georgia section of Smith's case against Trump, which includes evidence from seven states where Trump was alleged to have illegally interfered in the 2020 presidential election.

Trump was indicted on four counts of allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021 riot in the U.S. Capitol. It is one of four criminal cases that Trump is facing while he campaigns as frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. He has also pleaded not guilty to charges in the other cases, denying any wrongdoing, and has repeatedly said that they form part of a political witch hunt.>

Still playing <stalker>, now you're back from your little breaky-breaky? Too bad--you don't control things here.

<[Event "Woodstock Open"] [Site "Woodstock Conn"]
[Date "1985.03.10"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "4.7"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Rosen, Eric1"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "B10"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.e4 c6 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 g6 4.Ngf3 Bg7 5.Be2 e5 6.0-0 Ne7 7.b4 a5 8.bxa5 Qxa5 9.Bb2 Qc7 10.d4 exd4 11.Bxd4 0-0 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.c4 dxe4 14.Nxe4 Nf5 15.Qd2 Nd7 16.Qc3+ f6 17.Rfd1 c5 18.g4 Nh6 19.g5 Ng8 20.Rd6 Ra6 21.Rad1 h6 22.h4 Re8 23.gxh6 Kh7 24.h5 Rxe4 25.Ng5+ Kxh6 26.Nxe4 Rxa2 27.Qe3+ Kg7 28.Bg4 Ne5 29.Bxc8 Qxc8 30.Ng3 Qg4 31.Kg2 gxh5 Qb3 Ra7 33.f3 Qg6 34.Rh1 Nh6 35.Rxh5 Nhf7 36.Rb6 Ra1 37.Rxb7 Rc1 38.Rf5 Rg1+ 39.Kxg1 Qxg3+ 40.Kf1 Qh3+ 41.Ke2 Qxf5 42.Rc7 Qh3 43.Qe3 Qh2+ 44.Qf2 Qf4 45.Qg1+ Kh6 46.Qh1+ Kg6 47.Qg2+ Ng5 48.Rxc5 Nxf3 49.Rxg5+ Nxg5 50.Qg1 Qxc4+ 51.Kd2 f5 52.Qb6+ Qe6 53.Qd8 Ne4+ 54.Ke1 Nf6+ 55.Kf1 f4 56.Qd3+ Qe4 0-1>

<[Event "Woodstock Open"] [Site "Woodstock Conn"]
[Date "1985.03.09"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "3.6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Ketcham, Richard"]
[ECO "D52"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Clone Pine II"]
[Site "Antrim NH"]
[Date "1985.03.16"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Lavigne, Lawrence"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Clone Pine II"]
[Site "Antrim NH"]
[Date "1985.03.16"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Carter, David"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "B09"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Bd3 Qxc5 8.Qe2 Bg4 9.Be3 Qa5 10.0-0 Nc6 11.a3 Nd7 12.Bd2 0-0 13.Qe1 Bxf3 14.Rxf3 Qd8 15.Kh1 Nd4 16.Rh3 e6 17.f5 Ne5 18.Qg3 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 exf5 20.Be3 fxe4 21.Nxe4 Nf5 22.Bg5 f6 23.Qd5+ Kh8 24.Bf4 Qb6 25.Rd1 Rad8 26.Rb3 Qc6 27.Rxb7 Qxc2 28.Nc3 Qf2 29.Qf3 Qc5 30.g4 Nh4 31.Qd5 Qf2 32.Bg3 Qf3+ 33.Qxf3 Nxf3 34.Bxd6 Rfe8 35.Rxa7 f5 36.gxf5 gxf5 37.Kg2 Nh4+ 38.Kf2 Ng6 39.Rb7 Bf6 40.Bc5 Ne5 41.Rxd8 Rxd8 42.Ke2 Nc4 43.Be7 1/2-1/2>

<[Event "63rd New England Open"] [Site "Windsor Locks Conn"]
[Date "2003.09.01"]
[EventDate "2003"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Cherniack, Alex"]
[Black "Kelleher, William"]
[ECO "C02"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bd7 6.Be2 b5 7.O-O b4 8.Be3 bxc3 9.bxc3 Nge7 10.dxc5 Ng6 11.Nbd2 Ngxe5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.c4 Bc6 14.Bd4 Nxc4 15.Nxc4 dxc4 16.Bf3 Bxf3 17.Qxf3 Rc8 18.Rfd1 Qd5 19.Qg3 Rg8 20.Be3 Qc6 21.Rac1 Be7 22.Rxc4 h5 23.Qe5 g5 24.Qc3 f6 25.Qc2 Rg7 26.Qe2 g4 27.h3 Kf7 28.h4 0-1>

<[Event "63rd New England Open"] [Site "Windsor Locks Conn"]
[Date "2003.08.30"]
[EventDate "2003"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Cherniack, Alex"]
[Black "Friedel, Joshua E"]
[ECO "A58"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Eastern Class Championships"] [Site "Sturbridge Mass"]
[Date "2007.03.11"]
[EventDate "2007"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Cherniack, Alex"]
[Black "Rizzitano, James A"]
[ECO "A22"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<Clarence Thomas ally Judge William Pryor has denied Mark Meadows' bid to move his criminal charges into federal court, suggesting conservative opposition to immunity defenses similarly put forth by Donald Trump.

Meadows, Trump's former White House chief of staff, is among the 17 [sic] co-defendants charged alongside the former president for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. He has denied any wrongdoing.

He sought to move his case from state to federal court, saying that his duties listed in the indictment brought by prosecutors in Fulton County fall within the scope of his duties to Trump.

But in a Monday opinion written by Pryor, an ally of Supreme Court Justice Thomas, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Meadows must fight the charges against him in state court in Atlanta. It added that transfers are only allowed for current government officials, not former ones and that regardless, the charges against Meadows are about actions outside his official duties meaning he cannot claim immunity.

"We cannot rubberstamp Meadows' legal opinion that the president's chief of staff has unfettered authority," Pryor wrote.

"Meadows cannot point to any authority for influencing state officials with allegations of election fraud," he added. "At bottom, whatever the chief of staff's role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate."

Writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, Lee Kovarsky, professor of law at the University of Texas, said the judgment was "bad for Trump's defense" of his election interference charges because if, as with Meadows, the charges are ruled to be based on actions outside his official duties, he cannot claim presidential immunity.

Trump has moved to dismiss a Washington indictment for allegedly working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the 2021 riot in the U.S. Capitol, citing what Trump's lawyers claim is his "absolute immunity" from prosecution for actions taken while serving as president.

The judge overseeing the case, D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, rejected the motion to dismiss the case in December. While Trump's appeal is awaiting a decision in an appellate court, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider a request from Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the investigation into Trump, that it decide the case, bypassing the federal appeals court.

Kovarsky wrote: "In every way this is bad for Meadows, it's bad for Trump's defense in GEORGIA. Trump was going to claim Supremacy Clause immunity and Presidential immunity, but CA11's opinion on the scope of official duty means that it's going to be impossible for Trump."

"This is ALSO devastating to Trump et al. in the other prosecutions, especially in DC," he continued. "In all of these cases, he's claiming various forms of immunity that turn on the basic idea that he was somehow engaged in good governance, not unlawful electioneering."

He added that it was impossible "to overstate the significance of this opinion being written by Chief Judge Pryor, a conservative stalwart and probably the single biggest circuit court ally to Justice Thomas there is."

"Judge Pryor clearly wrote this opinion well in advance of argument. It is an unmistakable signal to R-appointed Justices that the immunity defenses are totally frivolous," he added.

Newsweek has contacted representatives for Trump by email and Thomas by website form to comment on this story.

Meadows could appeal Monday's ruling to the Supreme Court. Former Justice Department official Jeff Clark and three GOP activists are also seeking to transfer their cases to federal court.>

<This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could undermine not only many cases against those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against former President Donald Trump. An adverse ruling could limit the charges that Smith can bring against Trump. The court should not interfere with these prosecutions and should allow federal prosecutors, including Smith, the chance to hold those responsible for the events of Jan. 6 accountable for their actions.

Smith’s indictment against Trump lists four counts: “conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding” (the certification of the Electoral College vote), “obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding” and “conspiracy against rights” (in this case, Americans’ civil rights to have their votes counted).

The question now pending before the Supreme Court involves the second and third charges: whether the federal law that guards against corruptly obstructing an official proceeding can apply to individuals involved in the Jan. 6 attack. Congress enacted the law in the wake of the Enron scandals more than 20 years ago. It was originally intended to guard against white collar malfeasance: for example, a CEO accused of shredding documents or tampering with evidence during an ongoing criminal investigation.

The fact that the law was enacted in the wake of corporate financial scandals and meant to guard against white collar misconduct doesn’t mean it’s inappropriate to use the law here. Prosecutors have charged hundreds of alleged Jan. 6 rioters under this statute (18 U.S. Code § 1512). But in one of those cases — involving defendant Joseph Fisher — one federal judge ruled the statute’s wording doesn’t apply to those involved in Jan. 6.

While Judge Carl Nichols acknowledged that the certification of the Electoral College vote is an official proceeding, he found that defendants charged under the act must undertake “some action with respect to a document, record, or other object in order to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.” Because the government didn’t allege that the defendants took such actions, Nichols ruled the case against Fisher should be dismissed....>

<....A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with Nichols’ interpretation and reinstated the charges against Fisher and two other defendants who had made similar appeals. The majority found that the law applies more broadly and doesn’t need to be linked to actions involving documents, records or other objects. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has argued that even if the court rules that defendants charged under this law must take some action with respect to documents or records, documents were at issue in this case because those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 were trying to stop members of Congress from “validating the state certificates.”

The case now waits on the Supreme Court’s doorstep. Unless the court fast-tracks the case, it is unlikely to issue a ruling before the end of June. In this way, the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case is already a win for Trump. First, it threatens Smith’s ability to proceed on all four counts in the indictment. But second, and of equal importance, it will almost certainly delay the March 2024 trial date Judge Tanya S. Chutkan previously set in the case. Chutkan has already paused the case pending the outcome of a different appeal involving Trump’s claim of presidential immunity. While that appeal is fast-tracked, the delay is a win for Trump, whose best strategy for staying out of prison is to delay the cases as long as possible.

Smith knows that time is of the essence. That is why earlier this week the high court agreed to fast-track his request on the question of whether Trump enjoys presidential immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes committed while in office.

There is no secret why delay is Trump’s chosen defense strategy. The window is quickly closing on the public’s ability to hear the evidence Smith has garnered against Trump in a court of law before the 2024 election. If Trump can delay the case until at least the fall, he will argue that the case cannot possibly proceed during the final months of a presidential election campaign. If he wins the election, he can simply announce that he will be directing his new attorney general to drop the charges. If Trump is tried and convicted prior to his possible inauguration, he can attempt a self-pardon. In sum, delaying the trial date is an unqualified positive development for Trump.

The court should not thwart federal prosecutors’ ability to hold those who sought to undermine the peaceful counting of valid votes to account. While the federal obstruction statute may not have originally been envisioned as a tool to punish a president who allegedly sought to illegally maintain power, that does not mean that it is an inappropriate one. Congress may not have originally envisioned that we would be in this position, where a president and others allegedly tried to undermine the counting of Electoral College votes that would usher him out of power. But it would be a mistake to limit the tools available to Smith — and the justice system as a whole.>

<As Rudy Giuliani reels from a devastating $148 million verdict on Friday for ruining the lives of two Georgia women, the person he was acting in service to—Donald Trump—is desperately trying to dodge his own defamation disaster.

A New York federal jury in May already found that Trump sexually abused the journalist E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million. But that issue is coming back with a vengeance next month, with Trump bracing for a punishing second trial specifically over the way he defamed her from the White House by denying her claims.

At this point, the last person Trump’s lawyers want to see is the court expert who put a hefty nine-figure price tag on Giuliani’s misbehavior.

The target of their ire? A Northwestern University marketing professor who analyzes social media trends.

Court records show that the very same day Ashlee Humphreys testified in D.C. at Giuliani’s defamation trial last week, a Trump lawyer in New Jersey asked a federal judge in New York to block Humphreys from testifying against the former president.

“This court should simply exclude Dr. Humphreys’ testimony altogether,” Trump defense lawyer Michael Madaio wrote last Wednesday, asking the judge for a last-minute show of grace to avoid what could be a financial coup de grâce for Trump.

However, the defense team’s reasons for trying to push out Humphreys this late in the game seem quite ironic for a real estate tycoon who just wrapped up a trial about the way he committed bank fraud by vastly overstating his wealth. In their view, Humphreys’ assessments are… inflated.

“The damages estimations in her initial report are egregiously inflated (to the tune of millions of dollars), utilize methods which ascribe harm in an unreliable and incorrect manner; and do not accurately reflect the actual harm to plaintiff’s reputation,” Madaio wrote to U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

Humphreys isn’t exactly new on the scene. When Trump ghosted his own civil rape trial against Carroll in the spring—which focused mostly on whether the sexual assault actually happened at a Manhattan department store in the 1990s—the college professor testified about just how badly Trump’s public denials affected the journalist’s reputation.

Inside Kaplan’s federal courtroom in Manhattan, Humphreys explained how she had analyzed the publicity surrounding Trump’s defamatory statements. She spoke at length about “reputation repair,” using a mix of social media marketing metrics and basic math to arrive at an approximate cost that was something of an awkward construction: how much it would cost Carroll to counter the spread of Trump’s lies by purchasing equivalent TV and online content. Humphreys turns online “impressions” into dollar figures. Her final tally was something like $2.7 million.

At the end of that trial, jurors came fairly close to meeting that sum. Of the $5 million they awarded Carroll, the cost they associated with Humphreys’ reputation repair was $1.7 million.

However, that first Carroll trial focused on a relatively obscure public statement Trump made on Oct. 12, 2022, after leaving office—at a time when the White House press corps wasn’t circulating every flippant remark that came out of Trump’s mouth. Although the statement was posted to his eponymous website and his Truth Social media network account, it didn’t carry as far as the initial denials he made as president.

By comparison, the upcoming Carroll trial in January will focus on the statements Trump made during a couple of days starting on June 21, 2019.

“I’ve never met this person in my life. She is trying to sell a new book—that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the fiction section,” said one statement attributed to “President Donald J. Trump.”....>

<.....The next day, he doubled down when speaking to reporters as he boarded the Marine One presidential helicopter.

“It’s a totally false accusation,” he said. “I have absolutely no idea who she is. There’s some picture where we’re shaking hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife standing next to me. And I didn’t know her husband, but he was a newscaster.”

Given the more high-profile nature of these statements—made with the heft and attention granted a U.S. president—it’s no wonder that Humphreys’ multi-tiered assessment for “calculated damages” this time topped out at nearly $21 million. A confidential version of her expert report was filed as a court exhibit back in February.

Trump’s legal team is now raising issues with that assessment, claiming that Humphreys initially included the alleged damage caused by a third statement by then-President Trump—one that Carroll is no longer suing over—but hasn’t tweaked her numbers downward.

“The initial report no longer aligns with the subject matter of this case,” Madaio wrote to the judge last week. “In the initial report, Dr. Humphreys assesses the collective harm of all three statements… resulting in an improper and inflated estimation of damages.”

On Monday, Carroll’s lead lawyer filed court papers claiming that Trump’s team is fabricating a non-issue out of whole cloth by completely ignoring that Humphreys has already reassessed her total in a supplemental report. Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan—who despite the shared surname is not related to the judge—noted that Humphreys’ “proposed reputational repair program” now tops out at $12 million.

And she called out what she called “Trump’s desperation,” attributing his defense lawyers’ sudden worries to Humphreys’ stellar performance in Washington last week.

“Trump is understandably desperate to get rid of Professor Humphreys… the only issue at the upcoming trial is the amount of damages that Carroll is entitled to receive. Professor Humphreys will be critical to Carroll’s case, and Trump’s own expert has already been disqualified. That Professor Humphreys recently testified in another case that resulted in a $108 million defamation verdict likely adds to Trump’s sense of urgency,” Kaplan wrote, citing the punitive and defamation costs in Giuliani’s recent federal case.

Humphreys has now shown herself uniquely suited to slapping a dollar figure on MAGAworld misconduct. At Giuliani’s D.C. trial last week, she told jurors that the disgraced former New York mayor had so severely damaged the reputations of Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss that it would take anywhere between $17 million and $47 million to help them recover. Days later, jurors awarded them each more than $16 million for that very task—plus another $75 million as a punishment for the conspiracy-spreading disbarred lawyer.

Until now, Judge Kaplan—like so many other federal and state judges stretching from California to New York to Florida—has shown himself increasingly impatient with Trump lawyers’ delay tactics and courtroom antics. Unless he suddenly takes a different tone, the former president is about to get a hefty price tag put on his transgressions.>

<[Event "Boston Met League"] [Site "London ENG"]
[Date "1984.12.14"]
[EventDate "1984"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Forman, Robin"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "C04"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Newton Open"]
[Site "Watertown Mass"]
[Date "1985.01.05"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "1.4"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Curdo, John"]
[ECO "C71"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) took aim at former President Trump for launching a “misleading” ad suggesting she supports him.

Trump’s campaign released an ad earlier this month including comments from Reynolds praising the former president as being “a partner in the White House” for the Midwest. She argued the ad was misleading since she has chosen to endorse Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, not Trump, in the 2024 GOP primary.

“It’s misleading — it’s not fair to Iowans. Run on your policies, run on your vision,” she told Fox News on Monday. “You know, he came in, he was upset with me because I was gonna stay neutral at the beginning of the campaign for the first-of-the-nation caucus, which I did for seven months.”

“I made a decision to weigh in, then he said that support, endorsement didn’t mean anything,” she continued. “It was worthless. He said I was the worst governor in the country. So you know, that’s on one hand, and now we look at another hand. He’s using me in a commercial back that dates back to 2016. And, again, misleading Iowans as if I was endorsing them and going back and forth.”

Reynolds endorsed DeSantis last month, a change in stance from her previous statements that she would not get involved in the GOP primary. Since then, Trump has blasted Reynolds and DeSantis for the partnership, saying her endorsement is “not going to make any difference.”

Trump also accused Reynolds of being “disloyal” ahead of the endorsement.

With the Iowa caucuses just weeks away, Trump has remained the clear front-runner in the state, despite DeSantis projecting confidence in recent weeks. A recent NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll found Trump is leading DeSantis by 32 points in Iowa.

Reynolds said that while she supported Trump in 2016 and 2020, she believes it is time for Republicans to put forward a new candidate who can “win.” She also noted that DeSantis can serve for eight years, while Trump can only serve for four, suggesting that he would be a “lame duck” from his first day in office.

“We need somebody that can follow through with what they said they were going to do. And we need somebody that on day one can reverse the madness that we’ve seen from the Biden administration,” she said. “That’s Ron DeSantis.”>

Ladies and gentlemen, he could again be <your> Liar in Chief!!

<A conservative policy group has filed an ethics complaint against Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for "willfully" omitting required income disclosures for years while serving on the federal bench.

The Center for Renewing America, led by former senior Trump White House official Russ Vought, sent a letter to the Judicial Conference with allegations that Jackson "willfully failed to disclose" required information regarding her husband’s malpractice consulting income for over a decade.

The letter suggests that the Judicial Conference should refer Jackson’s possible ethics violations to Attorney General Merrick Garland for investigation and possible civil enforcement.

The letter notes that federal judges are legally required to disclose "source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceed $1,000…except…if the spouse is self-employed in business or a profession, only the nature of such business or profession needs be reported."

As part of her nomination to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Jackson disclosed the names of two legal medical malpractice consulting clients who paid her husband, Dr. Patrick Jackson, more than $1,000 for the year 2011, the letter notes.

On subsequent filings, however, Justice Jackson "repeatedly failed to disclose that her husband received income from medical malpractice consulting fees," the letter states.

"We know this by Justice Jackson’s own admission in her amended disclosure form for 2020, filed when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, that ‘some of my previously filed reports inadvertently omitted’ her husband’s income from ‘consulting on medical malpractice cases,’" the letter says.

Vought says in the letter that "Jackson has not even attempted to list the years for which her previously filed disclosures omitted her husband’s consulting income. Instead, in her admission of omissions on her 2020 amended disclosure form (filed in 2022), Justice Jackson provided only the vague statement that ‘some’ of those past disclosures contained material omissions."

Vought, who headed up the Office of Management and Budget under President Trump, argues that her Dr. Jackson’s income does not qualify for the "self-employment" exception. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA) requires Justice Jackson to identify the "source of items of earned income earned by a spouse from any person which exceeds $1,000."

The former OMB chief argues that since Jackson was aware of the requirements in 2012 enough to list the specific sources of income for her first disclosure filing, but not in subsequent filings apart from admitting that she left off some of her husband’s income, her actions amount to "willful" violation of the law.

The letter also claims there is reason to believe Justice Jackson may have failed to report the private funding sources of her "massive investiture celebration at the Library of Congress" in her most recent financial disclosure.

Following her appointment to the Supreme Court in 2022, the Library of Congress hosted a massive event in her honor featuring performances by several musicians and groups, including the Smithsonian Jazz Masterworks Quartet and civil rights movement Freedom Singer Rutha Mae Harris.

It’s unclear who paid for the event. EIGA requires that any gift "received over $415," to be disclosed. EIGA defines "gift" as "a payment, advance, forbearance, rendering, or deposit of money, or any thing of value."

Jackson’s disclosure for that year includes flowers from Oprah Winfrey with a $1,200 price tag, and a designer jacket from her Vogue photoshoot costing $6,580.

"Justice Jackson thus cannot claim ignorance of EIGA’s gift disclosure requirements, and there is no serious argument that this ‘massive event featuring performances by several musicians and groups’ celebrating her investiture is not a ‘thing of value,’" argues Vought.

Vought says that Jackson’s "disturbing trend of not reporting material sources of income and gifts" has "shielded potential conflicts of interest from public scrutiny and undermined the ability of the public, outside watchdog groups, and parties to scrutinize her recusal decisions."

Fox News Digital reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office but did not receive an immediate response.>

<[Event "West Suburban Winter Grand Prix"] [Site "Framingham Mass"]
[Date "1988.01.31"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Fang, Joseph"]
[Black "Gurevich, Ilya"]
[ECO "A21"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.g3 g6 2.Bg2 Bg7 3.c4 e5 4.Nc3 Ne7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Nbc6 8.d5 Na5 9.Nd2 c5 10.a3 b6 11.b4 Nb7 12.Bb2 Bd7 13.b5 Qc8 14.a4 Bh3 15.Nb3 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Qc7 17.Ra3 Rae8 18.a5 f5 19.Qa1 Nc8 20.axb6 axb6 21.Ra8 e4 22.e3 g5 23.Ne2 Be5 24.Bxe5 dxe5 25.Nc3 Nbd6 26.Nd2 Rf6 27.Na4 Qd7 28.f4 exf3+ 29.Rxf3 g4 30.Rf2 Nxc4 31.e4 Nxd2 32.Rxd2 fxe4 33.Nc3 Qf5 34.Rb8 Qf3+ 35.Kg1 Qe3+ 0-1>

<Conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Donald Trump nominee, is likely to face significant pressure should the former president appeal the Colorado Supreme Court's Tuesday decision that disqualified him from the 2024 ballot in the state.

The decision is the first by a U.S. court to find Trump ineligible to run for office again because of his involvement in the January 6 storming of the Capitol. A majority of the Colorado justices ruled in a 4-3 decision that the former president "is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment." Those four justices were all appointed by Democratic governors.

Crucially, the historic decision referenced a previous ruling by Gorsuch, before he became a SCOTUS justice, which found that "a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."

The case was about a naturalized American citizen, Abdul Karim Hassan, who wanted to run for the presidency, but was prevented from being placed on the ballot by the Constitution's natural-born citizen requirement.

This could prove tricky for Gorsuch once Trump's lawyers appeal the Colorado's decision to the Supreme Court, as they vowed to on Tuesday.

Talking on MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes, attorney and justice correspondent at The Nation Elie Mystal said he expects the Supreme Court's conservative majority to overturn Colorado's decision—though this might be awkward for Gorsuch as it would force him to go against his own previous opinion.

"Of course the Supreme Court is going to weigh in and likely overturn the Colorado state Supreme Court's interpretation of Colorado state law [...] but," Mystal said on Tuesday.

"I would like to point out that they [the Colorado Supreme Court's justices] were so aware of what SCOTUS was about to do in terms of bending over backwards, that they literally quote Neil Gorsuch, Neil Gorsuch when he was sitting in the federal circuit in Colorado—they quote Gorsuch for the opinion that Colorado gets to decide its own rules about who's qualified or not for ballot in Colorado," he continued.

"That's a Gorsuch opinion that they quote in the thing, so if Gorsuch had any logical consistency he would likely uphold the Colorado state court's opinion, but what we're about to see if just how again hypocritical and unserious this Supreme Court is when it comes to protecting their partisan sugar daddies like Donald Trump."

Newsweek contacted the Supreme Court for comment by email on Wednesday.

According to Mystal and other observers, this reference was included to maximize pressure on the Supreme Court's conservative justices, three of whom—Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett—were nominated by Trump. There's also a chance that Gorsuch, in order to be consistent, will decide in favor of Colorado's top court's decision.>

Whatcha gonna do, Gosuck?

<Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia is demanding that activists who mounted a pro-Palestinian protest at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday be sent to the "gulag" for taking part in an "insurrection."

Around 60 people calling for a ceasefire to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict were arrested for illegally protesting inside the Capitol Rotunda on Tuesday, U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) confirmed in a statement emailed to Newsweek. The activists entered the building as tourists and underwent a normal security screening before the protest began.

"We were aware of a group's potential plan to take a tour of the U.S. Capitol Building and then start a protest," USCP said. "It is against the law to demonstrate inside the Congressional Buildings, so we brought in additional officers to be prepared for the moment the group would break the law."

Greene, who has repeatedly argued that January 6 Capitol rioters were not taking part in an insurrection, lashed out at the protesters as "insurrectionists" while singling out controversial Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour in a post to X, formerly Twitter.

The congresswoman suggested that the pro-Palestinian protesters should be sent to the same Washington, D.C. detention facility as January 6 defendants—a facility that she has previously spoken out against over alleged harsh treatment of detainees.

"Insurrection happening now in the Capital!!" Greene wrote. "Is that Linda Sarsour leading the Pro-Hamas Anti-Israel insurrectionists? Very serious ties to terrorists & Progressive Democrats if it's her. Arrest them all and throw them in the DC gulag in solitary confinement just like J6'ers!"

Other posts and images shared on X suggested that Sarsour, who has been accused of antisemitism, did take part in the demonstration. Right-wing social media personality Rogan O'Handley, also known as DC Draino, made nearly identical demands within minutes of Greene's post.

"Linda Sarsour and her band of anti-semites are now insurrecting the Capitol Will the DOJ lock them all up and throw them in the DC Gulag like J6ers?" wrote O'Handley. "Or do we not have equal justice in this country?"

"Pro-Hamas insurrectionists are storming the US Capitol Rotunda," Republican Representative Mary Miller of Illinois wrote in response to Greene's post. "We were told for 3 years that this is a serious federal offense that must be prosecuted by DOJ. Will the FBI be rounding them up at their homes? Solitary confinement? Will Biden DOJ prosecute?"

Some responded to Greene's post by mocking the notion that the protesters were involved in an insurrection, while calling out the congresswoman for hypocrisy regarding January 6.

Notably, the protest on Tuesday took place after participants underwent security screenings and were allowed into the building before allegedly breaking the law. Whereas January 6 rioters, who were attempting to overturn former President Donald Trump's 2020 presidential election loss, violently stormed the Capitol and illegally broke through barricades before entering the building.

"No flag poles, bear spray or mace—no one is beating the Capitol police officers with their own shields," wrote left-wing commentator Joanne Carducci, also known as @JoJoFromJerz. "This isn't a peaceful protest but Jan 6th was? Get the f*** out of here."

"This is a parody account lmao?" @adelu1219 asked Greene.

Last week, Greene suggested in an X post that "Democrats and their propagandists in the media" should be put "in jail" for attempting to "take out [former] President Trump" by investigating his 2016 campaign's ties to Russia.

Two weeks earlier, the Georgia congresswoman shared an article on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by Russian state propaganda outlet Strategic Culture Foundation, while warning that "anyone who votes to fund Ukraine is funding the most corrupt money scheme of any foreign war in our country's history.">