Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday to endorse a
Republican lawmaker, but the former president's own fans rejected the suggestion. Trump frequently makes endorsements on his
Social Media platform that recently went public. On Sunday, he endorsed Tony Wied, Brad Finstad, Pete Stauber, and Tom Emmer in the hopes that they will succeed in their races. For the most part, Trump's supporters lapped up the new endorsements. But there was one exception. ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become
President Trump promoted Tom Emmer as "a fantastic Representative of Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District," saying he "is doing an incredible
Job as the Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives." "Tom has worked with us really well over the past 6 months, because he understands we can win Minnesota for the first time since 1972 - although I think we did really well last time!" Trump shouted on Sunday. "Tom is fighting hard to Secure our Borders, Stop Illegal
immigration, Grow the
economy, Cut Taxes, and Protect and Defend our always under siege Second Amendment. Tom Emmer has my Complete and Total Endorsement!" But Trump opposed Emmer in the race for speaker, ultimately endorsing Mike Johnson's bid instead. And the former president's fans aren't so quick to forget. "Nope, Emmer is a RINO, works with McCarthy," one Truth Social user wrote. "Emmer needs to be primaried by MAGA." Another user added, "Emmer sucks. He's UniParty." Another self-identified Trump supporter with the name "Gratefulone" also stood against his leader. "I must disagree on this pick," they said. A person with Trump in their user ID, @Godgunsandtrump, said, "Tom is a RINO." Another Truth Social user blamed Trump's handlers. "Who ever is advising President Trump needs to have his or her head examined to see if that individual is capable of doing a basic internet search on voting records," they wrote. "EMMER IS A RINO!" "Is he really the best choice?" another user asked Sunday. "Someone needs to primary him," wrote a user by the name of "MAGA Bean," @JerseyGIrlfor45. Judge Cannon's latest order chastising Special Counsel Jack Smith in Donald Trump's criminal case over stashed classified documents contains some language that might come back to haunt the jurist, according to a former federal prosecutor. Cannon, who has been accused of favoritism in her rulings in favor of the ex-president who appointed her to the bench, has previously been reversed by an appeals court that found she gave Trump improper deference during the investigation phase of the case. The case is now going to make its way to the Eleventh Circuit again, according to former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance. And when it does, Vance warns, some of Cannon's words will likely "come back to haunt her." ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the
White House is all that matters In a post published on her Substack page on Sunday, Vance said Cannon's courtroom is "increasingly reminiscent of 'Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,' where important matters are upside down." Vance further delves into the history of the documents case, where the most recent major development was Cannon's response to Smith's argument that she should rule on Trump's Presidential Records Act motion. "Judge Cannon seemed to view the jury instructions side show as a way of winking and nodding at Trump about the future of his defense once the case went to trial," according to Vance. "So it’s off base for her to call Smith’s request to clarify the ground rules 'unprecedented and unjust.'" Then came the warning, which could play out on appeal. "It’s possible to imagine that language come back to haunt her, when the Eleventh Circuit ultimately looks at this situation—because that moment is inevitably coming—and decides whose position here has been unprecedented and unjust," Vance wrote. Vance then lays out the potential next steps for Smith to take. Read the full post right here. CONTINUE READING Show less
Donald Trump , Lauren Boebert, Tim Scott, and numerous media outlets are among those who have parroted the line that Donald Trump raised $50 million at a one-night fundraiser, but not everyone is convinced it's true. Trump made the claim himself on his Truth Social platform on Saturday. And on Sunday, he shared a Breitbart article with the title, "Trump Smashes Biden’s Fundraising Record with $50 Million Saturday Night Haul." But that number has yet to be verified by independent sources, as Rolling Stone's report noted . ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters That Sunday report also made another note to its readers: "[R]eminder: a court found that Trump committed fraud by lying about his net worth ." Conservative Army
Iraq War Veteran Peter Henlein was one of the individuals who questioned the total on his social media. "I’m seeing lots of skepticism about Trump’s $50 million fundraising night. That’s crazy," he said Saturday. "Trump would never exaggerate or lie about money stuff, and with Lara Trump running the RNC, there is now an extra set of eyes making sure all messaging on any joint fundraising is honest." On Sunday, Henlein doubled down on the criticism: "The one night $50 Million fundraising total that Trump’s people keep touting is a confidence trick meant to fool people into thinking fundraising is going well (it isn’t) and to distract them from the fact that the money that is coming in isn’t being spent on winning
elections," he wrote. "If people think fundraising is awesome, they won’t object as much to massive sums being spent on Trump’s personal expenses. It’ll be months until FEC numbers are released that show the whole thing was BS, and by then it will be forgotten." A popular user on X, Piyush Mittal, also chimed in on the topic: Some guys keep big guns. Some guys keep big trucks. Some guys keep many
Women. Trump lies about big crowds and big fundraisers. $50.5 million? Come on man," he said Saturday Cheri Jacobus, a former Republican operative turned Never Trump activist , called out CNN's headline, "Trump campaign announces record $50.5 million haul at
Florida fundraiser," with a popular quote. "If someone says it's raining, and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both," she quoted on Sunday. "Your job is to look out the fucking window and find out which is true." CONTINUE READING Show less Donald Trump's lawyers may have made misrepresentations to the court regarding the former president's bond in his civil fraud case, and legal experts are looking out for what comes next. ProPublica reported on Friday that Trump's attorneys "had told the appellate court it was a 'practical impossibility' to get a bond for the full amount of the lower court’s judgment, $464 million." "But before the judges ruled, the impossible became possible: A billionaire lender approached Trump about providing a bond for the full amount," according to the recent report. "The lawyers never filed paperwork alerting the appeals court. That failure may have violated ethics rules, legal experts say." ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters That news made its way around the internet over the weekend, with various people chiming in. ProPublica Illinois deputy editor Steve Mills asked the question, "Did Trump and his lawyers fail to disclose key details about his bond?" That led former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann to post a related reminder. "And the $175 bond has reported issues: the surety company may not be licensed to give bonds in NY & may not have met the NY solvency reqs (can't post more than 10% of its worth so it is solvent to meet the bond requirements). 4/22 hearing scheduled by the court." Former prosecutor Barbara McQuade also chimed in: "AG is doing her job on behalf of the people of
New York to inquire into whether Trump’s appeal bond meets legal standards," she wrote on Sunday in response to Weissmann. "The risk is that if Trump loses his appeal and he can’t pay the $454M judgment, then taxpayers lose." In response to ProPublica's piece,
Trump campaign aide A.J. Delgado said, "Looking more and more like Trump did not, in fact, post the bond (at least not a proper one)." Speaking to MSNBC on Sunday, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti also said the lawyers involved have a "duty" to correct their statement. He noted that attorneys have additional obligations to be honest to the court. In the comments on the post from Mills, ProPublica's readers weighed in on the subject. "Of course they 'neglected' to do this," Barbara Levitan, @BarbaraLevitan, wrote. "There are no accidents with Trump, only deliberate deception." Mary Miller, @eaglzfan1967, said, "THEY LIED - THEY HAD A DUTY TO CURE THEIR FALSE STATEMENTS." CONTINUE READING Show less