A fired Federal Trade Commission official said Saturday that a recent Supreme Court ruling favoring President Donald Trump will leave billionaires "running wild."During an appearance on MS NOW, Rebecca Slaughter talked about her Supreme Court case against Trump in which she and another former Federal Trade Commission commissioner, both Democratic appointees, challenged their dismissals. "I was just profoundly disappointed," Slaughter said about the Supreme Court decision that allowed Trump to fire independent agency commissioners at will."That's a really sad change in our fundamental structure of government, mostly for the American people," Slaughter said. "The American people deserve a government that is fighting for them, and not just for the powerful."However, Slaughter warned that billionaires in particular stand to benefit from the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Slaughter.She described the Federal Trade Commission as a "check on unfair and illegal business practices on billionaire corporations and the billionaires who run them." The "chilling effect" of the Supreme Court ruling will leave those billionaires and corporations "running wild," Slaughter warned.Federal Trade Commission officials will have to "operate in fear of getting fired for failure to do a favor for the president's billionaire buddies," and won't know "whether they're going to be able to operate as a check" on the powerful, according to Slaughter."What will it mean if the president says to the FTC commissioners, 'I want you to make this case go away because this company is helping to build my ballroom or donate to my inauguration,'" Slaughter said. "In the past, what it would mean would be nothing because the way the FTC was structured, commissioners were obligated to follow the law, follow the facts, follow their oath."Slaughter added that the chilling effect could extend to "about two dozen agencies" that are under Trump's purview, including those that oversee "all kinds of important things, from nuclear safety to consumer product safety."
President Donald Trump will headline US Independence Day celebrations on Saturday with a speech and a show that seek to place him at the center of the nation’s 250th anniversary. (Source: Bloomberg)
President Donald Trump received a stark warning from a political analyst Saturday morning. Commentator Molly Jong-Fast took to X on Independence Day to share a less-than flattering editorial on the Trump family from a publication that typically sings their praises. "When you've lost the New York Post," Jong-Fast tweeted. The editorial in question chastises the president, with the Post's characteristic tabloid style, over reports that Trump's son Don Jr. and Eric are involved in a billion-dollar mining deal in Kazakhstan financed by the U.S. government."Hunter Biden-style sleaze is just as slimy when the Trump boys do it," wrote the Post editorial board. "It was bad when the Bidens did it, and it’s just as bad when the Trumps do it."Jong-Fast also shared a response from the thriller writer Brad Thor, who found himself on Independence Day in agreement with the New York Post."This should not be a partisan issue," Thor wrote. "If Americans were right to be angry about Hunter Biden trading on his father’s name, then Americans should be just as concerned when the Trump family is tied to deals involving foreign governments, federal support, and political access. Public service should never become a family revenue stream. One standard."Thor wasn't alone. "Never thought I see them say this but I agree!" wrote X user Emre Yurrtas. "The fact there are separate standards for each party on everything should bother everyone!"Jong-Fast was not the only one to urge Trump to change his ways. The Post editorial also had words of warning for the president. "Democrats in Congress are pressing for an investigation into Trump sweetheart deals," the Post said. "If they take the House in the midterms, these hearings are surely coming."
A century ago in Philadelphia, July 5, 1926, Calvin Coolidge gave America the speech it needed on its 150th birthday. He did not flatter the country. He did not scold it. He reminded Americans that the Declaration was not a museum piece or a political slogan, but a spiritual document rooted in permanent truths. On our 250th birthday, his warning looks less like history than prophecy. Read this excerpt slowly. Then ask whether we still believe it. Editor's note: This excerpt has been edited and condensed.We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the 4th day of July.Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years, the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.It is not so much, then, for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound.Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history.Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if it roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions.Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man — these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws that creates the character of a nation.RELATED: 1776, not 1608: What the Supreme Court got wrong on birthright citizenship Bettmann/Getty ImagesAbout the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful.
The Trump Justice Department stumbled in an Jeffrey Epstein files case with an "embarrassing" excuse flagged by a legal expert on Saturday.In a recent episode of the Legal AF podcast, analyst Michael Popok discussed the DOJ's response to an injunction requiring it to translate foreign-language documents in the Epstein files. The injunction stems from journalist Katie Phang's lawsuit demanding translation and a published redaction log, which has seen early success, Popok noted."It's not like the World Cup. It's not like there's 48 different countries of languages," Popok said. "What is it? Four or five languages. We know who was involved in the Epstein scandal. Maybe French, maybe Italian, certainly English, not a foreign language, but you know the way the Brits speak."Even though the DOJ responded to a judge's injunction "in the nick of time," it refused to translate parts of the Epstein files, saying reviewers "could not translate it on the fly," according to Popok."They could use an app, an AI app, that would do the initial cut of translation," Popok said. "It's embarrassing that they think they can get away with this."Popok summed up the DOJ's response as "you're not getting it, judge. We're not translating it." However, Popok added that the judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan, "doesn't suffer fools" and predicted that he'll be "p----- off" with the DOJ's excuse for not complying with the injunction."You're gonna see it in his next order," Popok said. "Remember we're talking about Epstein survivors and sexual abuse victims, many of them who were girls at the time."Read on Substack
