<[Event "BCC Championship"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[EventDate "1993"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Feinstein, Timur"]
[Black "Croxen, Kevin"]
[ECO "C11"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "BCC Championship"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[EventDate "1993"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Schmitt, Larry"]
[Black "Feinstein, Timur"]
[ECO "B24"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<Supporters of Donald Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement cheered Republican Representative Mike Gallagher's announcement on Saturday that he won't seek reelection this year after he voted against impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

"The Framers intended citizens to serve in Congress for a season and then return to their private lives. Electoral politics was never supposed to be a career and, trust me, Congress is no place to grow old. And so, with a heavy heart, I have decided not to run for re-election," Gallagher wrote in a statement on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday.

Gallagher, who represents Wisconsin's 8th District and is the chair of the House select committee on China, joins a growing list of House members, specifically Republicans, who announced they will not run for reelection this election cycle. Earlier this week, Washington state GOP Representative Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also announced that she wouldn't seek reelection this fall.

On Tuesday, Gallagher was one of four House Republicans who voted against impeaching Mayorkas who Republicans have accused of violating his oath of office regarding the U.S.-Mexico border as an influx of illegal migrants cross into the U.S. The impeachment charges failed to pass on a 214-216 vote. All 212 Democrats, meanwhile, voted against it.

Since Gallagher announced his plans, MAGA supporters have taken to X to celebrate the decision as they have been openly critical over the congressman's vote against Mayorkas' impeachment.

Newsweek has reached out to Gallagher's office via email for comment.

X user Mickey Mack wrote, "RINO Representative Mike Gallagher, who helped to save Mayorkas from impeachment, is not running for re-election. I guess he got an earful from his constituents. Don't let the door hit you on the a** on the way out!"

Political commentator Rogan O'Handley, also known as DC Draino on X, commented: "Ding dong another RINO GONE!! Rep. Mike Gallagher, who voted to let Mayorkas off the hook, won't run for re-election. Time for an America First Patriot to fill his seat."

Meanwhile, Republican political consultant Alex Bruesewitz wrote on X that he has been mulling a primary challenge to Gallagher, adding that the congressman was once "considered by many as a rising star in the GOP," but "instead of embracing the MAGA movement, he decided to betray the grassroots and protect the swamp."

However, commentator Chris Cillizza noted how House Republicans have changed for those who are "not reflexively Trumpy" writing on X, "15 years ago, Mike Gallagher would be a star in the GOP who people would talk about being Speaker one day. Today, there is absolutely no room for someone who is not reflexively Trumpy."

Trump has made immigration central to his 2024 election campaign, vowing to "immediately stop the invasion of our southern border." He has also previously urged Republicans not to accept anything less than a "perfect" border deal before the general election in November, sparking questions about whether some Republicans are working to prevent President Joe Biden from scoring a victory.

In response to the initial criticism Gallagher received for his impeachment vote, the congressman pushed back on Wednesday, saying he had told the party he would vote against impeachment "for over a month" and did not spring it on them as a surprise.

He also criticized GOP leadership for rushing the vote when they knew they wouldn't have the numbers.

Gallagher was not the only one who warned against the impeachment. Representative Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican, warned in the days leading up to the vote that impeaching the current Homeland Security secretary could open a door "as Republicans that we don't want to open," warning that future Republican presidents and their administrations would be subjected to the same "scrutiny" from Democrats.

But while Republicans may be enraged by those who went against the impeachment, political consultant Alex Patton previously told Newsweek that the House GOP, with its narrow majority, cannot afford to lose any more of its members, meaning conservatives can't threaten to remove those Republicans over their impeachment vote.

"This Congress with such a slim majority cannot afford to lose a single member, and the talk of expelling members is likely people letting off steam after their humiliation yesterday and/or people trying to carry favor with former President Trump," Patton said. "The talk of expulsion is nothing more than nonsense but completely on brand for this Congress."

VT Championship was held Thursday Night? That's a great tidbit.

<Lawyers trying to keep an abortion-rights measure off the Florida ballot have told the state Supreme Court that the proposed amendment is deceptive, and that voters won't realize just how far it will expand access to the procedure.

But the justices, at a hearing Feb. 7, seemed to think the proposed ballot question isn't so much a wolf in sheep's clothing, but rather a clear effort to keep the state from restricting most abortions.

“This is a wolf coming as a wolf,” said Chief Justice Carlos Muniz, one of five appointees of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on the seven-member court. “The people of Florida aren't stupid. They can figure it out.”

The proposed amendment says “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” It provides for one exception, which is already in the state constitution — that parents must be notified before their minor children can get an abortion.

Lawyers for Atty. Gen. Ashley Moody and the religious freedom group Liberty Counsel told justices it would essentially ban any restrictions whatsoever.

Proponents of the proposed amendment say the language of the ballot summary and the proposed amendment are concise and that Moody is playing politics instead of letting voters decide whether to protect access to abortions.

The group Floridians Protecting Freedom gathered nearly 1 million voter signatures, well more than the 891,523 needed to make the ballot. The court has made clear that its role is not to rule on the content of the proposed amendment, but rather, whether it is properly focused on a single subject, and whether voters will understand what they're voting on.

If the question is allowed on the ballot, 60% of voters would have to approve it.>

I have never heard anything on that, but assume Bill Goichberg decided it could be profitable, so decided to take a shot.

<The New York Supreme Court decision in former President Donald Trump's fraud trial will show that American justice is real—and real slow.

Yes, Justice Arthur Engoron's decision will show that no one is above the law. But the case is about to show us something else too—how needless delays will mean that Trump will face no consequences until long after the election. Trump is a master at manipulating the legal system and will doubtless seek to jam its gears in the hope that his election will somehow save him.

Of course, Trump has a right to file an appeal of the Justice's ruling. Review on appeal is fundamental to a fair handling of his case. But it can easily take many years. Here's how.

Nominally, Trump has 30 days from the entry of the judgment against him to appeal the ruling. But Trump also has 30 days to ask Engoron to reconsider his ruling. In some courts, you can file multiple motions like these in a series. They stop the clock ticking on the deadline to appeal. A skillful lawyer can drag this pre-appeal process out for months and sometimes years. They start by filing a motion and then seeking extended time to file their briefs. They encourage lawyers for the other side to seek extra time. They seek permission to file additional briefs. They drag their feet about arguing the motions. They insist they should call witnesses even when the trial is over. They might reopen attacks on the judge, the witnesses, or the government, claiming new information and the like. A judge must be mighty fleet of foot to stamp out all these little fires lit under his ruling. Finally, after months or years, the appeal gets filed.

And then it starts all over again. Motions to extend deadlines fall like snowflakes. Transcripts must be ordered. Preparing them can take months. Briefing schedules will be fought over. Extension requests will be filed. When the deadlines start to heave into view another favorite tactic is to agree to mediate. Further deadline extensions can be sought based on the mediation. Finally, it will emerge that—despite every hope—the negotiations have a collapsed. A new deadline will emerge and finally the matter will be briefed and—after attempts to reschedule—the matter will be argued in front of the Appellate Division of New York. That court will then take many months—often years—to issue a written decision. If Trump doesn't like it, he will ask the full court to reconsider it. He just did that after losing his bid for immunity in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing this issue and obtaining a ruling can devour more months if treated as routine. Then let's say, Trump still loses.

Sorry, but the case still isn't over. Trump can then petition the New York Court of Appeals to take up the case. This eats up more months. If the high court agrees to hear the case, the whole merry-go-round starts over. Let's say he loses again, and—after some additional time—the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

If it does, the case only ends up back where it started from because likely the liquidation of Trump's holdings will be complicated or made to seem so. Implementation orders are made—and yes—they will likely be appealed. And so, it goes.

Finally, after the 2024 election is long over—likely after the next four-year presidential term of office, Trump's chickens will come home to roost. And then he and his organizations will file bankruptcy. A whole new lawsuit kicks into gear and Trump holds off the full weight of what he faces until, somewhere in his late 80s or 90s, he will either pass away or pass into irrelevance.

The only way to stop this is for courts to stop doing business as usual. Courts can tightly control what gets filed when. They can control what gets decided and when. Too often they leave the preliminaries to lawyers and accept delays as normal. Trump's cases aren't the only ones withering on the vine. Until courts learn better case management techniques, Trump and other litigants who know time is on their side will win even when they lose.>

<Faced with a federal judge in the Donald Trump Mar-a-Lago classified documents case who keeps making bizarre rulings clearly favoring the man who appointed her, federal prosecutors have resorted to citing case law that Aileen Cannon should know for one major reason: She worked on it herself.

Department of Justice special prosecutor Jack Smith fired off a quiet shot across the bow at Cannon in a recent court filing—a filing that seeks to block Trump’s latest ploy to morph this criminal case into some kind of wild goose chase against the Biden administration.

Although the Trump team has already received 1.3 million pages of evidence, the former president’s defense lawyers are trying to bolster their client’s conspiracy-laden claims that this investigation is just a White House-led “selective prosecution.” In search of “political bias,” they’ve asked Cannon to force the DOJ to turn over all kinds of documents—under the guise of so-called “Brady rules,” which require the government to disclose exculpatory information to a person charged with a crime. In short, it’s a fishing expedition to delay the trial. And, as it happens, Cannon herself worked on a case that established some clear restrictions on this kind of legal deep-sea voyage.

Back when she was a federal prosecutor in South Florida, Cannon worked on a case involving a 2015 sting operation that caught two men who planned to rob a fake stash house of half a million dollars of cocaine, showing up with two AK-47s in their pickup truck. One of them appealed his conviction by claiming he was subject to an unfair “selective prosecution” on the grounds that the vast majority of stash house stings nab Blacks and Hispanics.

Cannon had already been elevated to the bench when her old team won the case in 2021, with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals pointing to long-established precedent that sets a “demanding burden” to make that kind of claim—particularly when trying to set off a document search for imaginary proof.

By coincidence, the case actually bore Cannon’s name. One of the men caught in the sting was named Lance Cannon, and the case was dubbed U.S. v. Cannon.

Now that Trump is making a similarly spectacular claim, Smith’s prosecutors have reminded Judge Cannon that her hard-won victory is the very reason she should rule against the former president. Defendants can’t just demand a government document dump by pointing to some flimsy notion of “selective prosecution,” the DOJ argued.

“A request to discover such material is, instead, ‘governed by well-settled and binding precedent in [Armstrong] and [Jordan,]” prosecutors wrote in February, citing the case she worked on by name.

"It’s smart lawyering," said Robert A. Sanders, a retired Navy JAG captain who now teaches law at the University of New Haven.

It’s also something of a flex.

“She worked on almost no cases. She had very little courtroom experience. To find a case that actually she worked on and that resulted in a published opinion is in itself improbable,” said Catherine Ross, a professor emeritus at George Washington University Law School.

“It’s a brilliant maneuver, and particularly with a judge who had so little trial background,” she said.

Citing past cases is part of a lawyer’s everyday job. When they point to higher court rulings, attorneys do it to explain how the current interpretation of the law guides judges to make certain decisions. Occasionally, lawyers get the opportunity to point to a judge’s own past rulings—a sort of gentle nudge that reminds judges to remain consistent.

But this is different.

The decision to point Cannon to her own case also sends a message—and not one meant for Trump’s lawyers or even the American public paying close attention to the historic case.

Smith’s choice to cite case law that Cannon actually worked could be viewed as a reminder to the judge that she knows better than to side with Trump on this—especially on such a narrow topic as bias-alleging document requests.

“It’s not quite the same as confronting a judge with an opinion they wrote or joined,” Ross said. “I don’t think selective prosecution comes up often. There are very few people who can pass the laugh test on claiming that. I think they have her locked in a pretty tight spot—if she were a normal judge.”....>

<....Then again, prosecutors are contending with a judge who has gone out of her way to block, slow down, and frustrate the criminal case against Trump.

Long before he was caught hoarding a vast collection of classified documents that he took home with him from the White House, Trump singled out Cannon as his preferred federal judge in South Florida. When Trump filed his revenge lawsuit against Hillary Clinton at a satellite courthouse where Cannon is the only judge, he was disappointed that another judge landed the case. (The judge ended up excoriating Trump’s lawyers for clearly trying to game the local district’s judicial assignment wheel.)

After the FBI seized boxes at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s lawyers sued the DOJ to hamper the probe and managed to get Cannon this time around. She used that opportunity to halt agents from reviewing evidence, appointing a referee in faraway Brooklyn to slow down the investigation, and feigning concern about Trump’s privacy that in reality stemmed from a doctor’s note Trump had previously made public as part of a publicity stunt.

It wasn’t until the 11th Circuit ordered her to back off that she relented. But since then, Cannon has consistently delayed a court review of classified records that would have only taken two days, causing a domino effect that has cast a cloud of uncertainty over the timing of Trump’s other upcoming trials in New York and Washington, D.C.

Sanders said the prosecutors’ citation of a case Cannon worked on could be read as a subtle reminder to the judge herself.

“The message is: Remember what you did earlier? And how you got jammed up for it—when you went in a direction no one in the world thought was right? Think about what you’re going to do this time,” Sanders said.

But if that’s the message, Cannon may not be getting it. In her latest move on Thursday, Cannon initially rejected prosecutors’ request to keep secret the identity of government witnesses—only to reverse herself and temporarily halt the measure the next day, after the DOJ special counsel warned about the threat of intimidation.

The judge has yet to rule on the Trump team’s request to greenlight its government dumpster dive, but Trump referenced the issue in a Thursday afternoon post on his Truth Social media network.

“Deranged Jack Smith and his Thugs should immediately drop the totally discredited Documents Hoax against me. A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION!” he posted.>

<In the bustling streets of New York City, the imposing facade of Citibank stands as a beacon of financial stability and trust. However, recent allegations by New York Attorney General Letitia James have cast a shadow over this image. A lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York accuses Citibank of failing to reimburse scam victims, exposing them to financial ruin due to what is described as inadequate online security measures.

Citibank Scam: A Breach of Trust

The core of the lawsuit illuminates a troubling scenario: Citibank’s digital defenses, or the lack thereof, have purportedly opened the floodgates for unauthorized account takeovers, leading to significant financial losses for its customers. From life savings and college funds to essential living expenses, New Yorkers have faced devastating impacts due to what the Attorney General’s office deems as “illegal and deceptive acts and practices.”

“Citibank has not deployed sufficiently robust data security measures to protect consumer financial accounts,” the lawsuit claims, highlighting a stark discrepancy between the bank’s security promises and its delivery. This alleged negligence has not only cost citizens millions but has also shaken the foundation of trust that the banking sector so heavily relies on.

Victims’ Voices

The lawsuit brings to light heart-wrenching stories of individuals who, through no fault of their own, have seen their financial security vanish. One such tale involves a New York woman who, after receiving a notification of suspicious activity, unwittingly engaged with a scammer posing as a Citibank representative.

Despite her immediate efforts to rectify the situation, she lost $35,000. Citibank’s response—or lack thereof—in providing reimbursement adds a layer of despair to her story.

Another case details a customer’s loss of $70,000 after reporting suspicious activity to her local branch, only to be dismissed and later found her account compromised. These stories underscore a chilling reality: the victims, despite following their instincts to protect their assets, were left unsupported by Citibank.

Citibank’s Defense

In the face of these serious allegations, Citibank stands by its security protocols and refund policies. The bank emphasizes its adherence to laws and regulations concerning wire transfers and its commitment to preventing fraud. Citi highlights the industry-wide challenge of wire fraud and outlines its efforts to enhance client security through advanced protocols and educational initiatives aimed at scam awareness.

However, the Attorney General’s lawsuit argues that under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), banks like Citibank are obligated to reimburse customers for unauthorized transactions, drawing a clear line in the sand between policy and legal responsibility.

As the legal battle unfolds, the implications for Citibank and its customers are profound. The lawsuit not only seeks restitution for those affected but also aims to enforce stricter consumer protection measures, ensuring that financial institutions bear the responsibility for securing their clients’ assets against evolving threats.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of robust digital security practices in safeguarding financial integrity. For Citibank, it’s an opportunity to reassess and reinforce its defenses, restoring faith in its ability to protect its customers in an increasingly digital world.

As the story develops, all eyes will be on the outcome of this lawsuit and its potential to reshape the landscape of consumer banking security. For the victims of these scams, justice may finally be on the horizon, but the scars left by these breaches of trust will undoubtedly take longer to heal.>

<Sitting in the Oval Office in the infancy of his presidency in 2017, Donald Trump found himself surrounded by new aides who had worked for other prominent Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, his most bitter rival from the previous year’s primaries.

The “America First” president evidently worried that they wouldn’t now put the American president first.

Trump went around the room, inquisition-style, asking each aide to declare allegiance, according to a person who was present.

“He was quizzing people in the Oval if they were loyal to him or previous bosses,” the source recalled seven years later.

But no matter how much emphasis Trump put on loyalty in his first term, he found himself disappointed and frustrated when people he had hired chose other considerations over his instructions — their own reputations, future ambitions and even the Constitution.

During one meeting three years into his term, the president sat with his third defense secretary, Mark Esper, a top aide who had been tasked with installing loyalists in the administration and other senior advisers. The aides wondered aloud how they had kept missing the mark and choosing people who weren’t loyal enough.

“Trump said, ‘We can’t let that happen again,’” according to a source familiar with the conversation.

From Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ allowing for the appointment of Russia special prosecutor Robert Mueller to Attorney General William Barr’s refusing to declare the 2020 election invalid and Vice President Mike Pence’s declining to reject electors, Trump felt he had been betrayed by the very officials who owed him the most.

Esper, too, would later be unceremoniously cast out after being at odds with Trump on a number of issues.

Now, as he contemplates a second stint in the Oval Office, his fixation on fealty appears to be growing, and some people who have spent time close to the former president say they believe it will be the singular criterion for potential appointees if voters give him what he wants.

Trump has repeatedly brought up the issue of loyalty in his public remarks, as well. On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, he emphasized that point at a rally. He went after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, his competitors who were once his allies. And as a contrast, he stood with his onetime rival Doug Burgum as the governor of North Dakota offered him an endorsement.

“There’s something about the lack of loyalty in politics,” Trump said.

Trump’s success in a second term will hinge on bringing in people committed to his agenda, top appointees from his first term say. Trump and his allies have big plans for a second term — and still-fresh memories of a drawn-out four-year battle against a hostile administrative state. But without committed allies in key roles, ambitions to gut the federal bureaucracy, overhaul rulemaking and slash budgets could wither and die.

“They have to be resolute with their commitment to the president’s vision,” a top Trump official said of those who could find themselves tapped for plum roles. “You weren’t elected; you’re a Cabinet person as part of the executive branch, and your job is to understand and execute.”

“The headwinds will be significant,” he added.

Finding the 'shock troops'

Allies of Trump, who is term-limited if re-elected, are aware of the need for a slate of officials willing to execute his vision and prepared to quickly kick into gear.

“You have four years. You have three or four major things you can accomplish — major things — and you have to have the full support of a team that’s loyal,” an outside adviser to Trump said. “I think the president is going to have that.”

A former White House official, speaking about the plans to send in loyalists who are better prepared to execute Trump’s agenda, said: “We’re not going to sit around and wait for the Senate, which is very, very divided and not even in the hands of conservatives, to get things done. Things will be happening, even before Inauguration Day.”

Already, conservatives are laying the groundwork for “shock troops” to take administration posts in a second Trump term, with one group, the Association of Republican Presidential Appointees, hosting a two-day “presidential appointee boot camp” Feb. 19 and 20 in the Washington suburbs.

The boot camp promises to give would-be appointees insight into “the operating context in which appointees work to implement the president’s agenda” and “tactics appointees can use to help the president gain control over the levers of power and thwart a hostile bureaucracy.”.....>

<....And yet, Trump’s campaign team has tried to put a lid on a constellation of outside groups that are dreaming up wish lists of appointees and an agenda for a prospective next term.

“The efforts by various non-profit groups are certainly appreciated and can be enormously helpful,” Trump campaign senior advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a statement in November. “However, none of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign. We will have an official transition effort to be announced at a later date.”

Wiles and LaCivita declined requests to comment for this article.

Refusing to take any chances in the vetting process, allies are promising to help “weed out those that would employ subterfuge” in a bid to thwart Trump from inside, the former official said.

“This is a sharp-elbowed sport, and we know that there will be people that want to undermine the president,” the person added.

A political strategist with ties to a Republican who has been floated in the media as a potential running mate for Trump said, “If you’re Trump, you value loyalty above all else, particularly because he sees Mike Pence as having made a fatal sin.”

It’s exactly that thinking that has given rise to concerns about who might be prepared to staff a future Trump administration, with those at odds with him fearing a worst-case scenario that imperils the sanctity of the republic.

“The starting point for a second Trump term will be the last year of his first term. … Loyalty will be the attribute Trump will be seeking above all else,” said Esper, whose tenure as defense secretary was cut short as Trump struggled to come to terms with the 2020 election results. “He won’t pick people like Jim Mattis or me who will push back on him. So the question becomes: What harm might occur over four years?”

'It reminds me of "Game of Thrones"'

As Trump’s lead in the Republican primary campaign becomes more solid, ritual demonstrations of loyalty, particularly from Republicans with stronger ties to a political establishment that was once foreign to him, show his tightening grip.

After Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina — who challenged Trump for the Republican nomination before he dropped out in November — said he would support Trump over Haley, Trump gave little pause before he dug the knife in as the two appeared together in New Hampshire last month.

“You must really hate her,” Trump said of Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, who appointed Scott to his seat in the Senate.

Scott could only manage to utter words that are music to Trump’s ears: “I just love you,” Scott said.

Yet, it’s not just Trump demanding fealty as he mounts his comeback campaign. Voters, too, feel a sense of allegiance, with Republicans today less likely than they were two years ago to believe Joe Biden was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election, according to a recent University of Maryland-Washington Post poll.....>

<....Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, a onetime Trump critic, defended those concerns in an interview with ABC News this month, echoing other allies for whom Trump’s election loss in 2020 still looms over his comeback campaign.

Vance, who has been floated as a possible vice presidential pick, said the results of the 2020 presidential race should have been handled differently for a “legitimate” outcome, with Congress considering multiple slates of electors.

It isn’t only potential running mates or political appointees who are taking stock of the price of disloyalty; so are operatives at every juncture of the Republican machine.

“It reminds me of ‘Game of Thrones,’” a former adviser said. “They want you to bend the knee. And if you don’t bend the knee, they take your property. They take your title. They take your reputation, and they throw you into the gulag.”

The demand has settled like a fog over the Republican Party, seeping into its crevices and stifling dissent, an outcome that gives credence to Trump’s fiercest critics, this person argued.

“What I fear is this idea of loyalty means ‘stop questioning,’” the former adviser said. “There will be consequences if you do, and that’s why I think there’s some credence to the idea that he’s a so-called authoritarian. I don’t think he is authoritarian, but he’s opening himself up to this criticism.”

This person added, “His idea of loyalty is one-way.”

Others said that while Trump is susceptible to displays of fealty, he is looking to nab top talent.

“He wants the ‘best available,’” another former White House official said. “Loyalty is important to him, but I don’t know that it’s as much of a litmus test as that.”

History shows that even a promise of excommunication from Trump can run its course. Those who have climbed back in from the cold include Steve Bannon, Trump’s ousted former chief strategist, and conservative media figure Tucker Carlson, who endorsed Trump in November but earlier wrote that he hated him “passionately” in a text message revealed in a lawsuit.

“There are plenty of people that he once viewed as, in his mind, disloyal, who he then relishes bringing back on board,” said Marc Short, Pence’s chief of staff. “Trump loves nothing more than a public reconciliation.”>

<[Event "Au Bon Pain Open"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1985.09.24"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Pearson, Fred"]
[ECO "D41"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[Source "Shaw"]

<[Event "96th US Open"]
[Site "Concord CA"]
[Date "1995.08.??"]
[EventDate "1995"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Curdo, John"]
[Black "Becco, Michael"]
[ECO "C17"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.f4 c6 5.Nf3 b5 6.a3 a6 7.Be3 Nf6 8.Be2 O-O 9.e5 Nd5 10.Nxd5 cxd5 11.O-O Bg4 12.h3 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 e6 14.a4 b4 15.Qd2 Nc6 16.Rfc1 Qb6 17.c4 Na5 18.c5 dxc5 19.dxc5 Qc7 20.Qd3 Rfc8 21.b3 Nc6 22.Rc2 Qa5 23.Rac1 Rc7 24.Kh1 Rac8 25.Be2 Ra7 26.Bf3 Bf8 27.Be2 Be7 28.Bf3 Rac7 29.Be2 Ra8 30.Bf3 Kf8 31.g4 Ke8 32.Kg2 Rac8 33.Be2 Nb8 34.Qd4 Rc6 35.Qd2 Bxc5 36.Bb5 axb5 37.Rxc5 Rxc5 38.Bxc5 bxa4 39.Bxb4 Qa6 40.Rxc8+ Qxc8 41.bxa4 Qc4 42.Bd6 Nc6 43.Qb2 Qxf4 44.a5 Qe4+ 45.Kh2 Qf4+ 46.Kg2 Qc4 47.Qb7 1/2-1/2>