<Donald Trump suggested America default on its debt. That would be a massive mistake: In this week’s town hall event televised by CNN, Donald Trump mentioned something alarming - but this might be his most insane idea to date. He said that if the Democrats do not give in to Republican pressures for spending cuts, it would be fine to let the government default on its debt of $31.4 trillion. This type of political brinksmanship is nothing new for Donald Trump, but it shocked financial experts and lawmakers from Trump’s party.

Consequences of Default

Negotiations between Republican and Democrats on Capitol Hill continue to be stuck in the mud ahead of the June 1 deadline to lift the debt ceiling. A default would shut down the government and create a ripple that could result in a financial crisis in markets around the world. The value of stocks and bonds would be negatively affected and ordinary American investors with 401k and IRA accounts would be particularly damaged. Payments to government workers, retirees on pensions, and veterans who look for monthly payments would cease. It could also result in layoffs and lower economic growth leading to a recession.

It’s Nearly Happened Before

This glimpse into Armageddon happened in 2011 when the government came close to default. The government’s credit rating was downgraded, and the S&P 500 dipped 20 percent that year.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has stated a default could cause “financial chaos” and have an “adverse impact” on the dollar’s prominence as the global reserve currency. This doomsday scenario could begin June 1 if Congress doesn’t raise the borrowing limit.

Republicans in the Senate Do Not Support Trump’s Sentiment

GOP lawmakers mainly agreed with Yellen that a default would be disastrous, and that Congress would find a way to avert it. Republicans on Capitol Hill worked to create distance between their financial views and Trump’s.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas said to The Hill that, “Nobody thinks default is a good idea. Nobody.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said, “I don’t think anybody suggesting that ‘we have to do a default’ is wise policy, wise strategy for this country,” She said that Trump “certainly doesn’t impact” her thinking on the subject.

Senator John Thune of South Dakota explained that “most people recognize we need to do a deal here.”

Thorny Talks Could Take Another Two Weeks

On the House side of Capitol Hill, Republicans are confident in the bill they passed that would raise the debt ceiling to $1.5 trillion in exchange for cutting spending by $4.8 trillion. Yet President Joe Biden is not in favor of such a drastic red lining of the government budget. Negotiations between the president and top lawmakers will continue May 12.

The talks will likely go down to the wire as they have done before, although there is likely to be a compromise to avert catastrophe. Trump as a candidate and not a policy maker is never afraid to shake up the status quo as he attempts to appeal to his populist base. This take no prisoners strategy when going up against Biden is popular with the MAGA faithful. But many of these voters do not likely understand the consequences of a default.

Disastrous for Trump Supporters

They could lose in their investment accounts and perhaps fail to receive government transfer payments that they depend on to pay bills. Of course, Trump made more of a throw-away comment at the CNN town hall. He is known for musing about certain outcomes and playing the provocateur to make headlines. If there were a default, he could point to the chaos and say that he was the kind of negotiator who could have avoided the situation. It is a cynical ploy to get votes, his critics would say.

Judging from what Republicans support in the senate, it appears there is room for compromise coming from the right. The more conservative populists in the House may not agree with the senators, but they will eventually get in line, and hopefully the president and his Democrat allies in Congress can agree to a compromise and allow some spending cuts. Trump’s outlier comments on the debt default will then be forgotten.>

<Conservative Twitter users ripped President Joe Biden for claiming that White supremacy is the "most dangerous terrorist threat" in America during a commencement address at Howard University this weekend.

Critics accused Biden of using the opportunity to inflame racial tension in the United States.

The 46th president addressed the graduates from the historical Black college at Washington D.C.’s Capital One Arena Saturday, speaking to them about the threats they face from the division among their own country.

After he hammered home the dangers of White supremacy, he assured his audience he wasn’t just saying that because he was at a Black school.

At the beginning of his statement Biden talked about America’s battle with racism from the time of its inception, saying, "We know American history has not always been a fairy tale. From the start, it’s been a constant push and pull for more than 240 years, between the best of us – the American ideal that we’re all created equal – and the worst of us, a harsh reality that racism has long torn us apart."

"It’s a battle that’s never really over," he said, adding, "But on the best days, enough of us have the guts and hearts to stand up for the best in us, to choose love over hate, unity over disunity, progress over retreat…"

Biden then zeroed in on White supremacy, saying, "…To stand against the poison of White supremacy as I did in my inaugural address." He then called it "the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland." The audience erupted in applause.

Pointing his finger, he added, "And I’m not just saying this because I’m at a Black HBCU. I say this wherever I go." The audience laughed.

Conservatives were not laughing on Twitter, but disturbed by what they viewed as quintessential Biden divisiveness.

Foundation for Economic Education managing editor Jon Miltimore tweeted, "The Democratic Party spent most of the 19th Century and much of the 20th using overt racism to win elections. They are doing again in the 21st century. The racism just looks a lot different than the 19th century version."

Conservative influencer Elijah Schaffer wrote, "Biden just told a bunch of black people that white supremacy is the greatest threat to America."

RNC Research’s Jake Schneider shared the clip and wrote, "Divider-in-chief Joe Biden, at Howard University, says "the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy."

OutKick.com’s Clay Travis found the statement completely ridiculous. He tweeted, "I mean, this is completely bonkers. Did anyone talk like this in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s or even 2010s? Of course not. Yet suddenly white supremacy is the BIGGEST THREAT in America? I don’t even think…"

Journalist Julie Kelly replied, "No you’re saying it because you’re a pathological liar propped up by the media to help fuel dangerous racial division."

And New York Post journalist Miranda Devine simply tweeted "Pure evil" in response to Biden’s line.>

<James Talarico, a Democratic lawmaker from the northern suburbs of Austin, slammed Republican efforts to enshrine Christian symbols and prayer into schools in conversation with Religion News Service — calling it "blasphemous," and urging real Christians to stand up and fight it.

Some of the bills, inspired by the "Christian nationalist" movement, would require public schools to erect monuments to the Ten Commandments, and allow public schools to hire chaplains in place of secular counselors.

Talarico, a former teacher and a Presbyterian seminarian, is having none of it.

"It’s not just a perversion of our Constitution, it’s a perversion of my faith," said Talarico. "Jesus, when he was in the wilderness, was tempted by Satan with, among other things, political power — with all the kingdoms of the world. That should go to show us Christian nationalism is kind of an oxymoron. The idea that this universal faith, based on radical universal love, could be confined to one political subdivision is just contrary to the entire gospel. Furthermore, to use political power to hurt marginalized people — whether it’s folks from other faith traditions like Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims, or whether it’s to hurt LGBTQ people, or women seeking reproductive health care — (is) blasphemous, according to my reading of the New Testament."

Christian nationalists believe that the United States was built for Christians and should be based on Christian law — an idea completely at odds with the First Amendment's mandate of secular government, and the historical record of the founding fathers governing America secularly. The movement has sought new political power in recent years, with one group, the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, seeking to draft model legislation to help state lawmakers impose Christian nationalist law in their state.

Talarico took to the Texas House floor to condemn the Ten Commandments bill — and, he told RNS he has received an "almost universal" outpouring of support over it — from people on both sides.

"I’ve had Republicans calling my legislative office and thanking me for speaking from a Christian perspective," wrote Talarico. "In fact, I’ve been confused for a Republican by people who just see the clip and don’t know anything about me. I’ve had a lot of posts saying, 'We’re so thankful to have Republicans standing up to this thing,' and, you know, 'Glad that a Republican is finally speaking out.' So, I guess that just goes to show how unusual it is for Democrats to be speaking about faith in that kind of way.">

<Legal experts are raising red flags that the 2024 presidential election could be thrown into turmoil if the Supreme Court doesn't make a definitive ruling on a controversial theory that would block courts at the state level from becoming involved in election disputes.

According to a report from Politico's Zach Montellaro, the once "fringe" independent state legislature theory is set to be heard by the court and the overwhelmingly conservative court has given signs it may not deliver a ruling in time for the pivotal 2024 election.

The case, Moore v. Harper, addresses "giving legislatures a much freer hand to set the rules of the road for congressional elections," Montellaro wrote, adding, "For instance, states could have potentially unchecked partisan gerrymandering or unfairly alter the rules governing how people can register to vote and cast ballots. "

According to Loyola Law School Professor Justin Levitt, the case is an "electoral" bomb that needs to be dealt with well before the 2024 election season kicks into gear.

“It would mean instant chaos for conducting congressional elections and presidential elections,” Levitt explained before adding, "It means that you’re no longer sure whether the same rules apply to federal elections that apply to state elections.”

The report notes that conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have "entertained" the notion of ISL and one attorney stated they should stay out of it.

Politico's Montellaro wrote, "Marc Elias — the powerful Democratic lawyer whose firm is representing other parties in the Moore case, claims "the case always had jurisdictional problems and the high court had no business weighing in."

Explained Elias, "Given the composition of the Supreme Court, no one who cares about free and fair elections should be rushing to get the Supreme Court to potentially create any doctrine where none exists.”>

Lichess here I come. CGs just does not know how to treat its good chess members right, nor does it care to.>

<An investigation into Clarence Thomas and other members of the Supreme Court for potential ethical violations is warranted, a former federal prosecutor said.

Thomas and his wife Ginni have been accused of numerous undisclosed gifts, including arranging for Ginni to get secret payments from a Republican donor. The Senate has the power to push forward on an investigation, according to former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti.

Mariotti said a subpoena fight isn't likely to make it to the Supreme Court in part because Thomas would likely have to recuse himself.

"I think the appearance of how that would look and be before the supreme court -- I think that would be very difficult," Mariotti said on MSNBC. It would be very hard for Thomas not to recuse if he didn't. It would create even more of an appearance of an issue."

Mariotti added that, if the Senate pushes forward on a probe, he thinks it's "a real matter of political will on the part of the United States Senate and Senators."

Mariotti also noted that there is something to be looked at in the ongoing ethics disclosures.

"Frankly, there is something to investigate here. You don't need to be a legal scholar or a lawyer to know this is something that looks really fishy," he told the MSNBC panel. "If somebody was paying my kid's tuition, then, obviously, I would be beholden to that person."

Mariotti further said, "And the fact that the Supreme Court doesn't have standards is an issue.">

<Last fall, on a mink farm in Spain, H5N1 (avian influenza) likely spread across the animals. The outbreak resulted in the death or culling of the entire group of 50,000 minks.

Why should you care? Because it may have marked the first known case of mammal-to-mammal transmission of the deadly virus known as the bird flu, according to a new study. And that doesn’t portend anything good for humans.

The bird flu has proven scary enough with its occasional spreads from birds to mammals of all sorts, but the study published in Eurosurveillance calls the latest devastation of mink sicknesses and deaths especially concerning. “Our findings also indicate that an onward transmission of the virus to other minks may have taken place in the affected farm,” the study authors write.

That raises the alarm that humans could be next. “This outbreak signals the very real potential for the emergence of mammal-to-mammal transmission,” Michelle Wille, a University of Sydney researcher, tells CBC News.

“It could have deadly consequences,” Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease specialist, tells CBC News. “This is an infection that has epidemic and pandemic potential. I don’t know if people recognize how big a deal this is.”

Well, that’s comforting.

The H5N1 avian influenza is notorious for a near 100-percent mortality rate in birds. While mammals aren’t catching the virus at the same rate as birds, they aren’t immune to the effects: bird flu has a global WHO mortality rate of greater than 50 percent for humans.

So far, the human infections link to contact with an infected bird, which is why the mammal-to-mammal possibility becomes the troubling part of this entire scenario. If a mammal, such as a mink, can become an intermediary host, the virus can then mutate to pose an even greater risk to other mammals, including humans.

“And so what’s concerning about this,” Louise Moncla, a University of Pennsylvania school of veterinary medicine assistant professor, tells CBC News, “is that this is exactly the kind of scenario you would expect to see that could lead to this type of adaptation, that could allow these viruses to replicate better in other mammals—like us.”>

If that day comes to this country, maybe we will get lucky and actually have a leader here who cares more about the people and less about satiating his rapacious ego, and who takes measures against such a plague.

<Grant Cardone knows all about being rich — and poor. The sales trainer, speaker and entrepreneur is worth an estimated $600 million, but part of his childhood was spent in poverty. When Cardone graduated from college in 1981, he was $40,000 in debt.

Given his experience on both sides of the wealth spectrum, Cardone probably has a natural curiosity about why some people become rich and others don’t. That curiosity was shared on Twitter this week when Cardone issued the following May 4 tweet: “Can someone explain to me how public servants (politicians) are becoming multi-millionaires on $100,000 salaries?”

Cardone didn’t provide further details on which public servants (and millionaires) he was referring to. Presumably, his tweet was mainly meant for members of the U.S. Congress. According to a 2020 report from Open Secrets, more than half of the 535 members of Congress are millionaires.

It is also unclear where Cardone got his $100,000 figure. The average annual salary of a rank-and-file Congressional member is $174,000, according to a 2019 report from the Congressional Institute. That lines up with more recent estimates reported by the Washington Post.

The Speaker of the House earns $223,500 a year, the Congressional Institute noted, while the Senate President pro tempore and Majority and Minority leaders each earn $193,400.

Those are excellent salaries — and much higher than the figure Cardone tweeted — but they don’t necessarily turn you into a millionaire. What they do offer is a nice base to build upon if you plan to supplement your income while serving in Congress.

There’s nothing preventing Congressional members from earning incomes outside their official duties, according to Open Secrets. However, there are restrictions. For example, they can’t earn more than 15% of the Level II of the Executive Schedule, which determines the pay scale of political appointees in the Executive branch. Members must also file disclosures detailing the source of both earned or passive income, such as stock dividends.

Stock investments are a likely source of income for many members of Congress, just as they are with the general public. But as The New York Times reported last year, economist Serkan Karadas found a “suspicious pattern” of Congressional members earning higher-than-average returns on their stock investments.

Karadas’ findings “suggested that at least some Congress members were profiting off their jobs,” according to the NYT. This could come in the form of insider knowledge about upcoming policy changes or economic shifts that can potentially impact stock performance.

In some cases, members of Congress were simply born rich. An example is U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), whose father George was CEO of American Motors before becoming governor of Michigan. Others married rich — including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-California).

Having personal wealth before you enter politics can go a long way toward financing successful campaigns — especially for those with no previous legislative experience.

Other members of Congress amassed wealth in the business world before entering government. For example, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) built a net worth of $300 million, mainly by founding Columbia Hospital Corp., which used a series of buyouts to evolve into Columbia/HCA, the world’s largest healthcare provider.>

<“Reparations: the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury.”

That’s the official definition of reparations in the Merriam Webster Dictionary. And in California, officially a “free state” during the era of slavery, a reparations task force just approved recommendations that could give each Black resident $1.2 million as compensation for slavery and other injustices. If this becomes law, it will cost the state of California an estimated $800 billion.

The reparations debate tends to fall along ideological and racial lines. According to Pew Research Center, reparations are supported by nearly half of Democrats but just 8 percent of Republicans. Overall, more than two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans oppose reparations. But that isn’t preventing San Francisco from attempting to forge ahead with its budget-busting plan.

Given the amount of money being discussed, surely the city’s African American Reparations Advisory Committee put a lot of time and energy into devising and applying some kind of mathematical formula to land at $1.2 million-per-person, right?

“There wasn’t a math formula,” confessed the committee’s chairman, Eric McDonnell.

“It was a journey for the committee towards what could represent a significant enough investment in families to put them on this path to economic well-being, growth and vitality that chattel slavery, and all the policies that flowed from it destroyed.”

So… just throw a seven-digit number out there and see if it sticks. Got it.

Easy question here: Where exactly is all this money going to come from? Because at last check, San Francisco is facing a $728 million budget shortfall over the next two fiscal years.

As is always the case, the Democratic solution is simply to impose another tax on the rich. “The rich must pay their fair share” is the mantra when it comes to justifying more spending. But the top 1 percent of income earners made nearly 21 percent of all income but paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes. So, it appears they’re already paying more than their fair share.

But with high-income earners fleeing the Golden State, tax revenue continues to be depleted. Per Bloomberg News:

“San Francisco, suffering from some of the nation’s weakest office occupancies and stubbornly low transit ridership, is now expecting business taxes over the next two years to decline by $179.3 million from previous estimates. Significantly, property taxes — usually a stable revenue source in downturns — are now projected over the same period to drop by $261 million from the earlier forecast.”

To complicate matters further, San Francisco is seeing the largest exodus of citizens of any city in the country. In other words, there’s no tax revenue to save the day. Which brings us back to our original question: Where is $800 billion coming from to pay for this?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) surely knows the math doesn’t remotely work. of course, Newsom established the reparation task force in 2020. But he now seems to be rejecting their recommendation for $1.2 million per person.

“Dealing with the legacy of slavery is about much more than cash payments,” Newsom said in his statement.

In other words, California simply doesn’t have the money....>

Rest on da way.....

<....In addition, according to the Wall Street Journal, “The California Legislative Office estimates tax revenue during this fiscal year and the next will likely be $10 billion lower, and the budget gap will likely be about $7 billion larger than the Governor forecasted last month, assuming Democrats restrain spending.”

America’s first Black president once weighed in on reparations. In 2004, he said, “I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, ‘We’ve paid our debt,’ and to avoid the much harder work.”

And in 2008, he said: “I have said in the past — and I’ll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. These challenges will not go away with reparations. So, while I applaud and agree with the underlying sentiment of recognizing the continued legacy of slavery, I would prefer to focus on the issues that will directly address these problems — and building a consensus to do just that.”

Hard to argue with that perspective. But somewhere along the way, Obama changed his tune.

“Are reparations justified? The answer is yes,” Obama said in 2021. Tellingly, however, Obama didn’t attempt to explain the math behind it.

This is where we are in 2023: Student loans are being forgiven for well-off college graduates, but there’s no loan forgiveness for those working hard and struggling to pay off a mortgage or car payment.

Same goes for reparations, where the thinking seems to be to hand out cash rather than, as Obama once recommended, do the “much harder work” of investing in the institutions that could actually help more Black Americans succeed.>

<During an appearance on MSNBC on Sunday morning, former Republican party campaign strategist Rick Wilson said Democrats have their work cut out for them in the 2024 election cycle where he expects Donald Trump will be at the top of the Republican Party ticket.

However, he told host Ali Velshi, the GOP has handed Democrats a gift that could not only allow them to hold onto the White House but also make inroads in conservative districts where normally they haven't been competitive.

Wilson, known for his hard-hitting ads as a principal at the Lincoln Project, claimed that abortion rights will cast a pall over Republican Party candidates' campaigns and that Democrats need to hit them hard on it.

By way of explaining, he noted progressive Democrats previously handed Republicans a cudgel to beat Democrats with -- and now they should return the favor.

"I want my Democratic friends to listen to this very closely," he began. "Because in 2020, the stupidest single line in American politics was ever uttered: it was 'defund the police.' It was a poison with everybody, including African American voters."

"'Six-week abortion ban' is 'defund the police' for Republicans," he explained. "It pulls them through the floor, everyone hates it. Republicans -- look -- about 25 percent of Republican women are pro-choice moderately, or somewhat, but pro-choice. About 18 percent of Republican men are pro-choice."

"The Republican Party that i grew up in was about getting the government out of life, out of your personal decisions, out of your bedroom, out of your wallet, out of your behavior, within the law," he elaborated. "And this six-week abortion ban stuff? It is radioactive waste for the Republicans right now. And in the states where they passed it, Democrats have a chance to make real inroads.">

<Rep. James Comer (R-KY) revealed on Sunday that Republicans had lost track of a top witness in the investigation of President Joe Biden and his family.

During an interview on Fox News, host Maria Bartiromo asked Comer about evidence he had of Biden's alleged corruption.

"You have spoken with whistleblowers," she noted. "You also spoke with an informant who gave you all of this information. Where is that informant today? Where are these whistleblowers?"

"Well, unfortunately, we can't track down the informant," Comer replied. "We're hopeful that the informant is still there. The whistleblower knows the informant. The whistleblower is very credible."

"Hold on a second, Congressman," Bartiromo said. "Did you just say that the whistleblower or the informant is now missing?"

"Well, we we're hopeful that we can find the informant," Comer said, explaining the informant was in the "spy business" and "they don't make a habit of being seen a lot."

"The nine of the ten people that [sic] we've identified that have very good knowledge with respect to the Bidens," he added, "they're one of three things, Maria, they're either currently in court, they're currently in jail, or they're currently missing.>

<New Hampshire Republican Governor Chris Sununu, during a Sunday interview with MSNBC host Jen Psaki, claimed "other countries" like France and Chile have raised the retirement age without any backlash — but that's not the case.

Several GOP lawmakers have shared their opinion that the United States, too, should consider raising the retirement age, and President Joe Biden has expressed his disagreement.

@InsidewithPsaki shared a clip of the pair's conversation via Twitter, writing, ".@jrpsaki: 'Would you be open to raising the retirement age?' @GovChrisSununu: 'I think if someone wants to move the retirement age – look, did they do it in France? Did they do it in Chile? They did it in all these other countries without a problem.'"

The governor continued, "Now, do you have to move it to 70? No, I don't think you have to go that far. The retirement age hasn't moved in decades, I think you know better than I. But there are just a lot of other doors that have to be addressed and talked about."

Sununu, who has teased his interest in announcing a 2024 bid, failed to mention France raised the retirement age — but not without consequence.

President Emmanuel Macron's decision to raise the age from 62 to 64 occurred amid protest.

Last month, CNBC reported:

Long traffic jams formed in cities including Marseille on Friday as crowds gathered around the country to hear the court decision. Protesters made their way into the headquarters of luxury goods giant LVMH and lit smoke flares on Thursday — the same day the company's share price reached a fresh record high, following the release of its first-quarter results.

Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the leftist La France Insoumise party, per a Reuters translation said,"The Constitutional Council decision shows that it is more attentive to the needs of the presidential monarchy than to those of the sovereign people. The fight continues and must gather its forces."

Additionally, regarding retirement age in the United States, last year CNBC also reported, Congress "approved a retirement bill that would push out the age for required minimum distributions on certain savings accounts to 75, up from the current age of 72," adding, "That change, if it passes the Senate, would be gradually phased in by 2032."

Some Twitter users immediately called out the 2024 hopeful on his false claims.

Morgan Fairchild: "Without a problem? There were RIOTS in France…"

@DocKimResists: Gov Sununu on #Inside with Jen Psaki is so uniformed. Yes, France raised the retirement age - but people rioted in the streets! US retirement age has been increased in the past. The Governor is a charming politician, but look past that & see he’s clueless. #HandsOffSocialSecurity

Bob McIntyre: Governor 'SuNoNo.' Gov. - In France, there was a 'problem.'"

Lizzie Starbuck: "Ok but how about LOWERING the age of retirement and giving our jobs to young people so we can enjoy what little health we have left? But no, republicans want to work us till we die. Remember when they tried to make the argument we were expendable?"

Dr. Michelle Henesy: "He and I have different ideas of the phrase 'without a problem'">

<Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy complained that a "crisis of masculinity" was preventing killings by subway vigilantes.

On a Sunday Fox & Friends segment, Campos-Duffy defended Daniel Penny after he allegedly killed Jordan Neely on a subway for being disruptive. Penny is facing criminal charges.

The host commented after one New Yorker said he might not have intervened like Penny.

"I thought, wow, that guy definitely won't protect me if I'm on a train and the crazy person was trying to kill me or attack me or punch me in the face," she said, "which there are plenty of videos of online of, you know, crazy people punching women in the face and then the men around them doing nothing."

"And so I think this also, you know, there's a legal aspect to this. There's a really important cultural aspect," the host added. "I think we live in a culture that already has a crisis of masculinity where so many young people are walking around."

Campos said "gender-confused" men may fail to act.

"They don't know," she opined. "They're gender confused. Am I a woman? Am I a man? What am I? Am I binary?">

I am not confused: Campos is f***ing stupid.

<Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor who consulted for the Manhattan district attorney, is going after Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) after he demanded Pomerantz appear before the subcommittee on "weaponization" in government.

Jordan has called on District Attorney Alvin Bragg, but he has refused, citing pending litigation and noting that the Congressional committee didn't oversee his office.

Pomerantz appeared before the subcommittee for six hours on Friday, and he opted to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The case concerns the New York probe into Donald Trump and the hush money payments to former adult film star Stormy Daniels. Jordan, who is an avid Trump supporter, is going after many of the investigations against the former president.

When Bragg entered the DA's office, some of the prosecutors claimed that he refused to prosecute Trump despite the evidence they'd collected. Pomerantz left the office, and began work on a book about his experience. Not long after the book dropped, the grand jury announced the indictment of Trump under 34 felony charges.

In his "Justice Matters" video cast, former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner cited one of Pomerantz's comments attacking Jordan using a veiled reference to Jordan's past refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas. He also explained that Jordan had put barriers in his own way that will stop him from getting what he wants from Pomerantz and others in the Bragg office.

"[Pomerantz] called out Jim Jordan for unlawfully defying a congressional subpoena, blowing off a congressional subpoena," Kirschner began in the video. "To be clear, that constitutes the crime of contempt of Congress. Yet now, the criminal is issuing subpoenas to others, expecting them to comply. I think that qualifies as irony, at a minimum."

"We are gathered here because Donald Trump's supporters would like to use these proceedings to attempt to obstruct and undermine the criminal case pending against him, and to harass, intimidate, and discredit anyone who investigates or charges him," Pomerantz also said in his opening statement.

Kirschner explained that since the past public statements, there is now litigation which means Pomerantz is governed by a different set of rules than before an indictment.

Pomerantz's opening statement also explained that previous comments from those in the news and at the DA's office indicated that he could be criminally liable. As such, it gives him the opportunity to declare his Fifth Amendment rights.

Kirschner agreed, saying that it would make him nervous if prosecutors were talking about something he did that might be illegal. He explained he would likely make the same move because anything that is said under oath could be used against him in court.

If Jordan truly wanted Pomerantz to give information, they could go to court and pursue the claim, saying that Pomerantz doesn't have the right to claim the Fifth.

"Here's the problem: Jim Jordan has been yelling, and screaming, and yammering about how this whole prosecution in New York against Donald Trump is a witch hunt, political retribution. Donald Trump committed no crimes. He doesn't deserve to be prosecuted," Kirschner described Jordan's claims.

Essentially, Jordan is alleging that the prosecutors committed crimes themselves by bringing charges against Donald Trump. If that is his claim, Kirschner explained that Jordan couldn't go into court and compel any of the D.A.'s office staff to testify or fight back against any Fifth Amendment pleas.>

<"Happy Mother's Day to ALL, in particular the Mothers, Wives and Lovers of the Radical Left Fascists, Marxists, and Communists who are doing everything within their power to destroy and obliterate our once great Country," he wrote. "Please make these complete Lunatics and Maniacs Kinder, Gentler, Softer and, most importantly, Smarter, so that we can, quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!">

<Fox commentator Tomi Lahren complained on Sunday that there isn't a major white supremacy crisis facing the United States. Even if there is, she explained, there's no way to solve it.

As part of the Sunday show, Lahren ranted that the Democrats have crafted the idea of an "ultra-MAGA white supremacist, threats to democracy." She said it while two fingers on each hand bounced in the air to indicate quotes.

"They've been able to use this. It's no coincidence they use this every chance because they want those Independents, those Democrats and especially those liberal voters to actually believe that the biggest problem we face is white supremacy because they can't really solve that. Right? You can solve the border crisis. That's solvable. Donald Trump did it! You can solve national security to an extent. You can't solve this boogeyman called white supremacy, and that's why they continue to echo it because they don't actually have to do anything. They just get to fire people up and make people feel oppressors and victims, and it's a talking point that unfortunately has been very effective, so they're going to keep using it."

In 2019, Lahren blasted Trump for what she said was a "sham" deal over the border funding.

Before the COVID-19 disaster, the "border crisis" was still a huge issue for which Trump was demanding funds for his border wall. It never happened and it wasn't the topic of conversation among Americans as they hand-made masks and hunted for Lysol and bleach to sanitize everything. As PBS reported at the time, Trump had been out of office for about two months when Republicans blamed President Joe Biden for the border crisis.

Lahren's co-host Joey Jones, a Marine Corps vet, ran over her comments, making it clear, "white supremacy is not a good thing" and explained, "I'm all for attacking where it exists."

"The body count for lone wolf terrorists in this country is higher now than it's been in a long time," said Jones. "I am for anything to help with that and have those discussions." He explained that it's different from the border crisis, however.>

<This week, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) fumbled comments about white supremacy in the military. According to Tuberville, white nationalists are nothing more than Americans and blamed Democrats for saying there were "too many white extremists, white nationalists, people that don't believe in our agenda, as Joe Biden's agenda." Since then, he's tried to "clarify" the comments.

At first, he engaged an NBC News reporter where he asked how one defines a white nationalist. He then claimed he was just being sarcastic. Finally, he moved on to another topic, complaining about people calling supporters of Donald Trump white nationalists.

Speaking to MSNBC on Sunday, former Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL), who lost to Tuberville, explained that the former football coach wasn't the most well-informed lawmaker in the Senate.

“This was a man that, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, did not even know what the Voting Rights Act was," said Jones. "He thought it was some kind of security issue or something for elections.”

“It’s hard to get somebody to walk back and clarify when they really have no clue about what they’re talking,” Jones explained.

He explained that it isn't a complicated issue for most people in Alabama.

"It's only complicated by the fact that he's putting a hold on all of these nominations," Jones said. It was a reference to Tuberville's refusal to allow any military leader to be promoted. It's a bipartisan bill that simply approves people moving from one leadership post to another. Tuberville opposes military promotions but has never been able to fully explain why.

"You cannot simply do what he did as a coach and coach athletes who happen to be athletes of color and claim to be some form of progressive in favor of civil rights," Jones also said.>

<As the wrangling over the debt ceiling continues, economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman highlighted one avenue where the government is losing a lot of revenue.

What Happened: The Council on Foreign Relations’ Brad Setser testified before a Senate committee on Thursday about global tax avoidance by pharmaceutical companies, wrote Paul Krugman in a New York Times op-ed on Friday.

Krugman noted that these multinational companies employ accounting tricks to avoid tax payments on profits earned in the U.S. This deprives the government of revenue, he wrote.

Krugman also referred to the 2017 tax cut passed during the presidency of Donald Trump. Instead of bringing in corporate investment back to America, the legislation encouraged corporations to move even more of their reported profits and, to some extent, their production overseas, he wrote.

Pharma's Big Tax Avoidance: Drug companies, which benefit due to higher prescription drug costs in the U.S., do not show much profit on U.S. sales, Krugman wrote.

The economist shared a chart presented by Setser, which showed big pharma companies earning abysmally low profits in the U.S. despite the fact that they reported significantly more revenue in the U.S. market than in the international market.

The Modus Operandi: Pharma companies assign patents and other forms of intellectual property to overseas subsidiaries located in low-tax jurisdictions, Krugman wrote. The U.S. operations at these companies pay fat fees to these overseas subsidiaries to use the IP, causing profits to disappear in the U.S. and reappear in other regions, where they go largely untaxed, he added.

Trump's Role: Krugman noted that the 2017 tax law gave companies incentives to shift actual production as well as reported profits overseas.

"[The tax cut] is probably a major factor in a recent surge in U.S. imports of pharmaceuticals," the economist wrote.

"Cracking down on tax avoidance could significantly reduce budget deficits," Krugman argued.>

<Fox News host Arthel Neville asked Representative Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, about the difference between Hunter Biden and Ivanka Trump profiting from their businesses while their fathers were in office on Sunday.

Republicans, who won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives this past November, have focused their efforts on investigating the Biden administration, including probes into the Biden family's businesses. Specifically, they have emphasized the foreign financial dealings of Hunter Biden, the president's son, raising concerns about corruption.

The Republican-led House Oversight Committee on Wednesday released a 36-page memo accusing members of the Biden family of earning millions of dollars from foreign businesses, including those associated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during Biden's term as vice president under former President Barack Obama. Democrats, however, have disputed that the report found any evidence of misconduct from the president.

Burchett discussed House Republicans' investigations into Biden and his family during an appearance on Fox News on Sunday, accusing them of "money laundering" based on the latest report.

However, Neville asked Burchett about how the Biden family's businesses profiting in office differs from that of the Trump family, including Ivanka Trump, who profited $640 million during her father's four-year presidential term, according to a 2021 report from the organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.

"According to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, on record, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump made up to $640 million while her father was in office, and they were official advisers to the president. If you would explain to our viewers why the Hunter Biden scenario is different," Neville asked.

Burchett defended Trump's business dealings, saying that the Biden family's business dealings were more "hidden" than those of the Trumps.

"Well, during the Trump administration, those transactions were not hidden. They're on bank forms. There were not violations filed because of that. That was business dealings that they were doing, and they were business people," he said. "Whether it was, I think that should be looked at as well."

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

Neville followed up by asking Burchett whether corruption concerns would arise from any family members of the president.

"So if the problem is corruption and compromise, wouldn't any income of such of that substantial amount be problematic for our country while someone is in office and their family members are receiving those sorts of payments?" Neville asked.

He responded: "I think so. There should be no stone left unturned. But apparently, this is one that they refuse to even look at, so I think that shines a straight light right at the Biden administration."

Democrats have defended Biden against Republican investigations, dismissing the GOP's latest report and arguing that Biden has not committed any wrongdoing.

Representative Jamie Raskin, the Maryland Democratic ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, wrote in a rebuttal: "None of the bank records reviewed by Committee staff allege, or even suggest, any potential misconduct by President Biden, nor do they show President Biden's involvement in Hunter Biden's business relationship." Even some Republicans have scrutinized the report's findings.

"It doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the general public until there is the smoking gun of, yes, a piece of paper, saying 'I, Joe Biden, changed this policy regarding Romania or Ukraine because of the money,'" former Trump aide Sebastian Gorka said in a podcast with Breitbart politics editor Emma Jo-Morris on Thursday morning. "Are we ever going to see that?">

<Republican and rightwing rhetoric over the state of crime in the US could spark a rise in violent incidents and worsen the country’s mass incarceration problem, experts say, as “tough-on-crime” political ads and messaging seem set to play a large role in the 2024 election.

Violent crime was a huge focus for Republican candidates during the 2022 midterm elections. Republicans spent about $50m on crime ads in the two months leading up to those elections, the ads pushing a dystopian vision of cities ridden by murder, robbery and assault, and of Democratic politicians unwilling to act.

As the 2024 contest heaves into view, it is clear that Republicans plan to follow the same playbook.

“Joe Biden and the defund-the-police Democrats have turned our once-great cities into cesspools of bloodshed and crime,” Trump said in a recent campaign video.

Trump said if elected president he would order police forces to reinstate “stop and frisk” – a police tactic which has been shown to disproportionately target young Black men – and said he wanted to introduce the death penalty for drug dealers.

Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who is expected to be Trump’s closest rival for the Republican presidential nomination, has also leaned into tough-on-crime rhetoric and policy. Last month, DeSantis signed a law lowering the death penalty threshold in Florida, allowing people convicted of certain crimes to be sentenced to death if eight or more jury members recommend it.

“They think that’s the way to score political victories,” said Udi Ofer, a professor at Princeton University and the former deputy national political director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“I think there’s a bit of a kneejerk, and, quite frankly, lazy attitude that tough-on-crime is the only way to win an election, despite the fact that we have so much evidence today that shows there are other ways.”

There is also an element of Republicans, and, Ofer said, some Democrats, pouncing on an increase in violent crime during the Covid pandemic.

The Brennan Center for Justice found that the number of murders per 100,000 people rose by nearly 30% nationwide in 2020, while aggravated assault rose by 11.4%. The rate of murder rose in big cities, which tend to vote Democratic and which are repeatedly demonized by Republicans and the rightwing media. But it also rose across the rest of the country.

“So-called red states actually saw some of the highest murder rates of all,” the Brennan Center said....>

Rest is a-comin'....

<....Since that peak, most types of violent crime have now dropped. Crime declined in 35 large cities in 2022, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, although rates remain higher than pre-pandemic levels. Still, the rate of homicide in major cities was about half that of historic peaks in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The 1980s was when tough-on-crime rhetoric “exploded”, Ofer said. It culminated in the election of prosecutors who promised more convictions and longer sentences.

The impact, Ofer said, was “an exponential growth in incarceration” in the US. About 300,000 people were in prisons and jails in 1973, but by 2009 that number had grown to 2.2m – making the US the largest incarcerator in the world.

“This was a result of hundreds of new laws and practices at the local level, at the state level, at the federal level, including new mandatory minimum laws, more cash bail and pre-trial detention, and more aggressive prosecutorial and policing practices,” Ofer said.

In this crime crackdown, not everyone was treated equally. Black people have been historically more likely to be arrested than white people, which led to higher rates of incarceration. A 2003 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that in 2001 “an estimated 16.6% of adult black males were current or former State or Federal prisoners”. Just 2.6% of adult white males had been incarcerated.

Some progress has been made in the last two decades. By 2020 the number of people in jail or prison was down to 1.2 million – meaning the US still has the fifth highest incarceration rate in the world – but the obsession with tackling crime, through measures including more arrests, more prosecutions and more imprisonments, could see a reversal.

“We are on the verge again of seeing the types of policies that devastated particularly low-income communities of color grow again as it did in the 1980s and 1990s.”

Republicans have led the charge on crime rhetoric, Ofer said. But now Democrats are getting in on the act – “we are seeing a growing movement within the Democratic party pushing for more tough-on-crime policies”, Ofer said.

The rhetoric and fearmongering over crime has led, in part, to an expansion of “stand-your-ground” laws in the US. In the past 10 years, 14 states in the US have added some form of the law, which can rule that people determined to have acted in self-defense can escape prosecution for actions up to and including murder....>

<....A 2022 investigation by Reveal found that 38 states now have some version of “stand your ground” – and the laws have proved devastating: a study published in 2022 found that the legislation was linked with an 8-11% increase in homicides.

There are direct consequences on the ground for people of color, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community

Stephen Piggott

Ironically, given the accusation from the right that Democrats are too soft on crime, it appears to be traditionally “red states” that have the more serious crime problem.

“The murder rate in the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump has exceeded the murder rate in the 25 states that voted for Joe Biden in every year from 2000 to 2020,” Third Way, a US thinktank, reported in January. Third Way also found that in 2020 murder rates “were 40% higher in Trump-voting states than Biden-voting states”.

Although Republicans harangued Democrats over crime in the 2020 midterms, the strategy seems to have had mixed success. Republicans largely underperformed in those elections, and Ofer pointed to the success of progressive prosecutors across the country as evidence that a tough-on-crime message is not always a successful route to take.

As well as the impact on incarceration and violent offenses, the tough-on-crime approach can also lead to the demonization of certain communities, said Stephen Piggott, a researcher at Western States Center, a non-profit organization which works to strengthen democracy.

Republican talking points about the danger of immigrants and people who live in inner cities could be behind an increase in attacks on minority groups. “In recent years, there’s been a real mainstreaming of both violent and dehumanizing rhetoric, and it’s espoused by elected officials and media personalities,” Piggott said.

“And it’s really served to kind of normalize this political violence. When you have individuals with large platforms, like elected officials and media personalities, and they’re talking about things like an impending civil war, it could lead to folks kind of taking that to heart and then acting on it.”

The number of hate crimes in the US increased by 12% in 2021, according to the FBI, although the true number is likely to be much higher, given data from some of America’s largest cities was not included in the FBI’s report.

About 65% of the hate-crime victims were targeted because of their race, according to the report, while 16% were targeted over their sexual orientation and 14% of cases involved religious bias.

“So there are direct consequences on the ground for people of color, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community,” Piggott said.

<One of 2024's most closely watched U.S. Senate races will be the one in Arizona. Although Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Arizona) has not made a formal announcement, the Wall Street Journal has reported that she is "preparing" to run as an independent.

The former Democrat turned independent is known for being an avid runner and has often tweeted photos of her participating in marathons in different parts of the United States — including the Boston Marathon. But according to The Daily Beast's Sam Brodey, Massachusetts donors have been covering significant chunks of Sinema's marathon expenses.

Sinema, Brodey reports in an article published on May 14, "appears to have turned" her visits to Boston "into a fundraising junket" by "allowing her campaign to cover the thousands of dollars in expenses she would have incurred herself by traveling to the race."

Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, according to Brodey, show that the Arizona senator "collected over $16,000 in campaign contributions from a handful of Massachusetts-based donors in April 2022." And her Getting Stuff Done PAC, Brodey reports, spent over $1500 on "meeting meals" and "event supplies" at "Boston-Area businesses the week of the race."

Brendan Fischer, the deputy executive director of watchdog group Documented, told the Daily Beast, "Tacking some personal activities onto a fundraising trip is generally going to be fine, but this appears to be the inverse: tacking fundraisers on to personal trips to justify the use of campaign funds to cover the costs.">