President Trump had previously been amping up his rhetoric against Iran.
A federal appeals court is allowing President Donald Trump to collect his temporary 10% global tariffs for now while the legal challenges against the trade levies proceed through the judicial system. In a Thursday ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., concluded the Trump administration‘s case in defense of […]
President Trump ripped RINO Senators, Mitch McConnell and Lisa Murkowski on Thursday during remarks to reporters in the Oval Office. The post President Trump Rips Into Mitch McConnell During Oval Office Event (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Political observers never believed President Donald Trump's cancellation of his "Anti-Weaponization Fund" was sincere, especially after new reporting revealed the administration plotted to continue it secretly, correspondent Scott MacFarlane told Nicolle Wallace on Thursday.A big reason why, he said, is that DOJ attorneys are being asked in court why they refuse to put the cancelation of the fund in writing — and they aren't giving convincing answers."Scott, take me inside the reporting you've done on how the victims of some of these crimes, the people who are on the other end of some of these criminals violent acts against law enforcement feel about Trump's dedication to a fund that even Republicans oppose," said Wallace.MacFarlane noted that a number of the January 6 defendants "in court during trial claimed they were the victims of a weaponized prosecution, and that argument was laughed out of court, either by the judges, juries or some combination of the two.""As for the slush fund. Oh, the slush fund. It reminds me of one of those corny 80s or 90s teen horror movies where everybody thinks the monster is dead, and then they go back out, running around the house and the monster comes back again and comes back again. This thing is not dead," said MacFarlane. The court exchange in which a judge asked the DOJ legal team why they haven't "put it in writing," and the DOJ team had no clear answer even as he insisted "a dozen times" the fund was "not moving forward," tells people all they need to know, he said."The judge asked point-blank, why not just put it in writing? Why not just rescind the fund for now, pending future review?" MacFarlane said. "And the attorney twice said, I don't know, your honor. There was a murmur in the courtroom. There was laughter in the courtroom."The bottom line, he said, is that "nobody takes their word this monster is dead" — and the Trump administration will keep being asked in court why they can't put it in writing that it is, as more lawsuits get filed. - YouTube www.youtube.com
President Donald Trump says the US “just made a great settlement of the war with Iran, and we’re going to be subject to finalization of documents.” Trump says a final deal could be signed within days. He spoke at the White House Thursday. (Source: Bloomberg)
David Hale, Former US ambassador to Pakistan and Lebanon, and Dana Stroul, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, discuss President Trump’s announcement of a potential deal with Iran, including questions over what has been agreed to, whether Iran’s leadership is aligned, and how the US and Israel may approach the next phase of negotiations. They speak with Kailey Leinz on the late edition of Bloomberg’s "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)
A federal judge in Florida appointed by President Donald Trump just nine months ago seethed at the administration in a new ruling, accusing them of cooking up a flimsy excuse to bypass his own judgment in favor of a career official within the administration itself.Judge Kyle Dudek's ruling concerned the immigration detention case of Dmitrii Iastrebov, a noncitizen who has been sitting in lockup without a proper hearing — only for the Trump administration to argue that the administration's own appointed immigration judge, rather than the U.S. district judge, should be the final word on the matter.This case, wrote Dudek, "borders on the surreal ... an immigration judge refused to hold the ordered hearing, claiming Iastrebov is not covered by § 1226(a) and thus ineligible for bond. Instead of defending this Court’s mandate, the Government’s counsel acquiesced in that refusal and waived any administrative appeal. Now, faced with a renewed habeas petition, the Government casually announces that its previous concession 'was in error' and asks this Court to reverse itself and hold that Iastrebov is instead subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225.""The Government was right the first time," wrote Dudek. "And its request for a do-over here is not just legally unsupportable, it is a masterclass in litigation cynicism. A federal court is not a testing lab where the Executive branch can pilot a concession to get a case closed, stand by silently while its own administrative process flouts the resulting mandate, and then stroll back in demanding a clean slate. Give me a break."Iastrebov's right to a hearing, the judge continued, has already been litigated "in painstaking detail ... and because the Government has shown that it cannot follow this Court’s explicit directions and offers zero assurance that it will comply with the statutory process it previously championed, Iastrebov will be immediately released."This court loss comes after a series of other legal defeats for Trump on various aspects of immigration policy, including a judge in Massachusetts striking down Trump's $100,000 fee for high-skilled immigrant workers.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Cuba’s state-owned Union Cuba-Petroleo gas and oil company on Thursday as the Trump administration continues its pressure on the communist island nation. The sanctions block all property and interests in property between the United States and Union Cuba-Petroleo, and all dealings must be reported to the Treasury […]
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said the US and Iran are on the cusp of a deal to end their conflict. The reality has proven more elusive — in part because of the nature of the negotiations themselves.