Idiot Trump Doubles Down on Mar-a-Lago Lie in Fraud Bond Freak-Out

One nagging detail is still plaguing Donald Trump as the deadline looms for the $464 million bond in his New York bank fraud trial: how much Mar-a-Lago is worth.

Trump faces a Monday deadline to post the massive bond in his fraud trial—and if he doesn’t, New York state is prepared to seize his assets. Amid a Monday morning freak-out over the reality he now faces, Trump once again doubled down on the claim that Mar-a-Lago is worth far more than the judge claimed—an exaggeration that won him the huge fraud fine in the first place.

“[Judge Arthur] Engoron’s fraudulent valuation of Mar-a-Lago for $18,000,000, when it is worth 50 to 100 times that amount, is another piece of the Election Interference HOAX. It’s all a giant and totally illegal Witch Hunt against Biden’s Political Opponent!” Trump posted on Truth Social Monday morning, a handful of minutes before entering a Manhattan courtroom for a hearing related to his Stormy Daniels hush-money trial.

In other words, Trump is once again trying to claim that Mar-a-Lago could be worth as much as $2 billion—surely a claim that an appeals court could consider when hearing his desperate attempt to overturn the judgment against him.

Attorneys for the GOP presidential pick have claimed in court filings that Trump has tried and failed to get upward of 30 suretors to help him secure a bond for the half-billion-dollar disgorgement. But after a trial that found Trump had massively overinflated the value of himself and his assets, with evidence of a massively downsized evaluation for one of his biggest Florida properties, who would?

So Trump has attacked the thorny detail for months, claiming every which way that the trial constituted an “election interference scam,” that the estate’s value is worth “50 to 100 times” more, flailing accusations that the price tag was cooked up either by New York Attorney General Letitia James or Engoron, and outright demanding that “the only fraud was the valuation of Mar-a-Lago at $18,000,000 by the Crooked Judge in order to help his already fully debunked narrative.”

“They should pay me damages for what they have done, and ultimately will,” Trump wrote ominously on Sunday. “THESE ARE NOT THE PEOPLE THAT MADE AMERICA GREAT, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DESTROYING AMERICA!”

Still, the accusations that either New York official conjured the valuation is, itself, a fabrication. In the judge’s initial September 26 ruling, in which he decided that the Trump Organization had committed fraud, Engoron turned to a local—a Palm Beach County property appraiser—for an estimate on the 20-acre property. It was the appraiser that determined Mar-a-Lago was worth “between $18 million and $27.6 million,” rather than the $426 to $612 million valuation that Trump had tagged it for, and which Engoron noted had overvalued the property by “at least 2,300 [percent].” That lower assessment was for tax purposes.

A California judge on Monday dismissed X owner Elon Musk’s pathetic lawsuit against a nonprofit that studies misinformation and hate speech for highlighting the social network’s flaws.

Musk sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate in August, accusing the research group of conducting “a scare campaign to drive away advertisers.” The group had shared research that hate speech had flourished on X (formerly Twitter) after Musk took over in the fall of 2022.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer struck down the lawsuit on Monday, ruling that Musk definitely isn’t the free speech champion he claims to be.

The CCDH “has met its burden at the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis,” Breyer wrote in his ruling. Strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits meant to censor, intimidate, or silence critics by saddling them with legal defense costs until they drop their criticism.

“Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose,” Breyer noted. “Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”

“The Court notes, too, that X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident. X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp.—and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”

Musk indicated he intended to take legal action against the CCDH in July, when X parent company X Corp sent the nonprofit a letter accusing the group of making “a series of troubling and baseless claims that appear calculated to harm Twitter generally, and its digital advertising business specifically.”

X Corp alleged that the nonprofit was funded by X’s competitors or foreign governments “in support of an ulterior agenda.” The letter specifically cited research on hate speech on X that the center published in June. One of the eight papers the organization published found that X took no action against 99 of the 100 Twitter Blue accounts that the center had reported for “tweeting hate.”

But Breyer found that X Corp’s allegations about the CCDH’s supposedly misleading publications “provide the only support for X Corp.’s contention that it has been harmed.”

Advertisers have left X in droves since Musk took over, promising to make X a bastion of free speech. The most recent exodus was in November, after an explosive Media Matters report revealed that X has been placing ads for brands including Apple, Bravo, IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity next to posts that promote Hitler and Nazi beliefs. But Musk has tried to blame any and everyone other than himself, accusing companies of trying to “blackmail” him by withholding ad dollars.

It may be, though, that companies just don’t want their branding next to hate speech. Since taking over X, Musk has allowed Nazis and the Taliban on Twitter—and even verified them. He also has done nothing to rein in antisemitic and transphobic speech on the platform. If anything, he’s one of the main sources of it.

As a result, the platform’s value has nosedived. X is worth just a fraction of the $44 billion Musk paid for it—by Musk’s own estimate, X’s value may have dropped 90 percent.

This story has been updated.

MSNBC reporters are in revolt against the network’s decision to hire former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel, publicly calling out their bosses on air.

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, the co-hosts of Morning Joe, made it clear Monday morning that they disagreed with the decision and had no intentions of allowing McDaniel on their show.

“We weren’t asked our opinion of the hiring, but if we were, we would have strongly objected to it for several reasons, including, but not limited to, as lawyers might say, Ms. McDaniel’s role in Donald Trump’s fake elector scheme and her pressuring election officials to not certify election results while Donald Trump was on the phone,” Scarborough said.

Brzezinski echoed the sentiment, saying, “We believe NBC News should seek out conservative Republican voices to provide balance in their election coverage. But it should be conservative Republicans, not a person who used her position of power to be an anti-democracy election denier.”

They then played a compilation of the many, many falsehoods McDaniel has spewed on air.

McDaniel made her on-air debut during Sunday’s episode of Meet the Press, just days after NBC announced she would join the network to provide conservative political analysis. NBC News political coverage chief Carrie Budoff Brown explained that McDaniel was chosen because she can provide “an insider’s perspective on national politics and the future of the Republican Party.”

Before McDaniel appeared Sunday, Meet the Press host Kristen Welker told viewers the appearance was a “news interview” that had been scheduled for weeks. During the segment, McDaniel did finally admit that Joe Biden had legitimately won the 2020 presidential election. But when Welker asked why it had taken McDaniel so long to say so, McDaniel was quick to caveat her words.

“I’m going to push back a little because I do think it’s fair to say there were problems in 2020 and to say that does not mean he’s not the legitimate president,” McDaniel said.

Despite multiple investigations, many paid for by Trump himself, there is no evidence of fraud during the 2020 election.

Shortly after McDaniel’s interview, NBC anchor Chuck Todd tore into the network’s brass for hiring the former RNC chair.

“I think our bosses owe you an apology for putting you in this situation,” Todd told Welker. “Because I don’t know what to believe. She is now a paid contributor by NBC News, so I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn’t want to mess up her contract.”

Todd pointed out that McDaniel has “credibility issues” and that many journalists at NBC were “uncomfortable” with the decision to bring her on board.

“Many of our professional dealings with the RNC over the last six years have been met with gaslighting, have been met with character assassination,” he said. “So when NBC made the decision to give her NBC News’s credibility, you got to ask yourself, ‘What does she bring NBC News?’”

Many NBC employees have been asking themselves that exact question. Multiple NBC political reporters, speaking anonymously, told Politico that had they been consulted, they would have advised against hiring McDaniel because she has nothing to offer the network.

McDaniel is not close to Republican leaders in Congress. She is unpopular with anti-Trump voters, who think she tipped the primaries toward the former president. And she has fallen out of favor with Trump himself, who ousted her from the RNC in March. So it’s not as if she can bring any insider information to the table.

What’s more, MSNBC President Rashida Jones told multiple anchors over the weekend that they would not be forced to book McDaniel, The New York Times reported, citing anonymous sources. So if McDaniel has nothing special to offer the network and no one is required to bring her on air, why is she even there?

Ohio Representative Jim Jordan completely shut down while answering a simple, direct question about who’s still listening to MAGA ramblings about the proven-to-be-baseless 2020 election lie.

During an interview on 60 Minutes on Sunday, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee couldn’t defend the campaign that he and his Republican coalition have spent the last four years failing to prove.

“Well what about this idea that the 2020 election was stolen? You think that these companies should allow people to say that, and individuals can make up their own minds and that there should be—” said anchor Lesley Stahl, before being interrupted by Jordan.

“I think the American people are smart. I’ve not said that, I’ve said there were concerns about the 2020 election, I think Americans agree with that,” Jordan said.

“No they don’t,” Stahl retorted. (Several polls conducted over the last year indicate that roughly two-thirds of the country believes that Biden was fairly elected and don’t believe the conspiracy holds any water.)

“You don’t think there were concerns with the 2020 election?” Jordan shot back.

“Most people don’t question the result. That’s all I’m saying,” she responded.

“Oh, they’re there,” Jordan interjected

“They don’t question whether Biden won or not. Right?” Stahl continued, before insisting against Jordan’s blank expression. “Right?” she prompted.

“Oh, OK. Right,” Jordan said, seemingly agreeing.

Watch the bewildering exchange below.

More than five months into the horrifying conflict, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has finally called Israel’s war on Gaza a genocide.

On Friday, the New York lawmaker echoed language that President Joe Biden used during his vice presidency, reminding the lower chamber that “preventing genocide is an achievable goal.”

“Too often these efforts have come too late, after the best and least costly opportunities to prevent them have been missed,” she said during a harrowing speech on the House floor.

“As we speak, in this moment, 1.1 million innocents in Gaza are at famine’s door. A famine that is being intentionally precipitated through the blocking of food and global humanitarian assistance by leaders in the Israeli government,” she continued.

“This is a mass starvation of people, engineered and orchestrated, following the killing of another 30,000, 70 percent of whom were women and children,” she said. “There is hardly a single hospital left. And this was all accomplished, much of this accomplished, with U.S. resources and weapons.”

“If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like, open your eyes,” she added. “It looks like thousands of children eating grass as their bodies consume themselves while trucks of food are slowed and halted just miles away. It looks like good and decent people who do nothing or too little too late.”

Also on Friday, Ocasio-Cortez voted against a $1.2 trillion federal funding package that will gut U.S. funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which sends aid to Palestine. On Thursday, she called the cuts “unconscionable” and “highly political.”

Friday also saw another failed vote at the United Nations Security Council supporting an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. The resolution was the first one proposed by the U.S. calling for an immediate cease-fire, even if it wasn’t legally binding. Ultimately, the effort was torpedoed by Russia and China.

Last week, a cohort of senators in the Democratic caucus called on Biden to immediately suspend military aid to Israel so long as the Western ally continued to block humanitarian aid efforts into a starved Palestine.

More than 31,000 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict, in which Israel has weaponized mass starvation as well as blocking or destroying access to critical resources such as water, food, fuel, electricity, and medical aid.

Mike Johnson may not be out of a job just yet, but staying on as House speaker is going to cost him.

Several House Democrats indicated Friday that they would be willing to shield Johnson from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s motion to vacate. In exchange, the speaker must bring a Ukraine aid package to the floor for a vote.

“If Taylor Greene puts forth a motion to vacate because there’s a bill on the floor that we have the ability to vote on—the Senate-passed Ukraine bill—I would absolutely vote to table,” Representative Abigail Spanberger told Politico.

She was referring to a $95 billion aid package that has already passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support. The measure includes $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, an increasingly unpopular issue among far-right Republicans, as well as aid for Israel and Taiwan. If the package were to go up for a House vote, it is widely expected to pass, but Johnson has so far refused to bring the measure to the floor.

“I think Speaker Johnson should demonstrate a willingness to govern in a way that is helpful to the plight of democracy and our allies across the world,” Spanberger said.

Representative Jamie Raskin said that voting to table the motion to vacate would not be about “saving Mike Johnson.”

“I’ll make a common cause and an alliance with anybody in Congress who will try to save the Ukrainian people at this point,” the Maryland Democrat said.

The lawmakers are likely taking their cue from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who said recently that his caucus would be willing to support Johnson if he brought the aid package up for a vote.

“It does seem to me,” Jeffries told The New York Times in late February, “based on informal conversations, that were Speaker Johnson to do the right thing relative to meeting the significant national security needs of the American people by putting it on the floor for an up-or-down vote, there will be a reasonable number of people in the House Democratic Caucus who will take the position that he should not fall as a result.”

Johnson has previously refused to consider the aid package because it does not include regulations for the U.S.-Mexico border that he considers strict enough. But in recent days, he privately told some Democrats that he would prioritize foreign aid next and would put a Ukraine aid bill to a vote after Easter recess, according to Politico.

Other Democrats, including Tom Suozzi and Jared Moskowitz, indicated Friday that they would back Johnson’s efforts to remain speaker. Moskowitz made it clear on social media that he does not actually support Johnson but just wants to ensure that Greene does not “take over the people’s House.”

Greene revealed Friday that she had filed a motion to vacate Johnson, just moments before the House voted to approve a $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill. The Georgia Republican, who just four months ago backed Johnson for speaker, said she wanted him to view her motion as a “warning.” But Greene said she intended to bring the motion to a vote, she just wasn’t sure when that would happen.

Judge Aileen Cannon used to be a gem to work for, say early former employees. So why did two of her law clerks up and leave their one-year posts a few months ago? According to attorney David Lat, it all boils down to a major character change in the judge’s behavior that began in August 2022—when she was assigned Trump v. United States, Trump’s case against the FBI for raiding Mar-a-Lago.

Early clerks for Cannon described their time with the judge as an “invaluable learning experience” and “wonderful,” Lat reported Friday in his Substack Original Jurisdiction.

“How you enjoy your clerkship with Judge Cannon will be shaped by your priors,” one source told Lat. “If you get easily stressed or try to get through life with minimal work, you’ll find her overly demanding and domineering. But if you’re used to adversity, being in difficult situations, and making hard calls, you’ll do well. You’ll find her to be a tough boss, but one who gets your best work out of you.”

But that glowing outlook on time with Cannon changed when she issued a bizarre ruling in Trump v. United States that was quickly chopped up and reversed by the Eleventh Circuit. That left a significant marr on her record—one which an incoming clerk determined would be a “drag on their résumé,” wrote Lat. Others who were already clerking for the judge were “unhappy” about how the “credential value” of their clerkship had declined.

Then, in June 2023, Cannon was randomly selected to oversee United States v. Trump, better known as the classified documents case. That required Cannon’s already stressed staff to obtain security clearances. In the process, one clerk’s clearance was delayed, forcing the other two to take on even more work and resulting in her chamber falling behind.

Newer reviews of the judge’s managerial style, in light of her recent, headline-grabbing caseload, have been less than kind. One clerk who recently left her side described the judge to friends as “mean,” reported Lat.

One January post on the Top Law Schools forum described Cannon’s post-Trump office as a micromanaged, round-the-clock commitment that at times required more than 100 hours of work per week, even when Cannon herself showed up a fraction of the time.

“Generally, she treats clerks (and the entire chambers staff) very poorly and tends to get angry to the point of screaming at them and talking to them in condescending ways. I know her courtroom deputy quit less than two years into the job,” the user wrote.

“She frequently requires that clerks come into the office on weekends and federal holidays (including some major ones), even though she herself is there less than 1/4 of those days. And when she does require weekend or holiday work, she won’t let you know until last minute so if you bought a plane ticket, you’re out of luck,” the anonymous user continued. “Even if she doesn’t mandate weekend work in the office, the deadlines she sets are so unrealistic that 9 times out of 10 you’re going to be working on a weekend just to turn in a not-great draft by the deadline (which only contributes to more yelling and screaming for it not being polished enough).”

“Average hours worked in a week are between 80-100, with 100+ hours a week not being uncommon. It’s definitely not a clerkship to take if you have a family,” they added.

Republican Representative Mike Gallagher announced Friday that he will leave Congress in just a few weeks, leaving his party’s majority in the House in its most precarious position yet.

Gallagher’s departure will leave House Republicans with 217 seats in the chamber, compared to Democrats’ 213. The GOP has already struggled to pass any legislation, and Gallagher’s resignation means the GOP now has just a one-vote majority. That number is likely to shrink even more in coming months as more Republican lawmakers leave early.

Gallagher was seen as a rising star in the Republican Party. A four-term lawmaker, he was chosen to lead the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Republicans also viewed the young Wisconsin representative as their “best shot” to unseat Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin.

But Gallagher had been at odds with his party on several key issues recently. He rejected the conspiracies that the 2020 election had been rigged, and slammed the January 6 insurrection as “banana republic crap” (although he ultimately voted against impeaching Donald Trump).

Crucially, in a stunning upset, Gallagher voted against impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in February.

“I whipped ‘no’ for over a month,” Gallagher said at the time, explaining he was worried his caucus didn’t have the votes to pass articles of impeachment and would just embarrass itself by plowing ahead.

Gallagher made his announcement the same day that Representative Ken Buck, one of the few other Republicans to oppose impeaching Mayorkas, leaves Congress. When he announced his early retirement last week, Buck had hinted that more Republican resignations were imminent.

“I think it’s the next three people that leave that they’re going to be worried about,” Buck said. Two more to go.

This article has been updated.

NBC raised eyebrows Friday when it announced that former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel will join the network as an on-air contributor.

McDaniel, who stepped down from the RNC at the start of this month, will provide conservative political analysis on NBC and its affiliate MSNBC. She makes her on-air debut on Sunday.

NBC News political coverage chief Carrie Budoff Brown explained that McDaniel was chosen because she can provide “an insider’s perspective on national politics and the future of the Republican Party.”

That insider knowledge is apparently enough for NBC to overlook the rest of McDaniel’s history. Although she disagreed with Donald Trump in recent months, McDaniel was still one of his biggest allies in the party. She repeatedly elevated his claims and conspiracies, including that the 2020 election had been rigged and that mail-in voting allowed for fraudulent ballots to be cast.

McDaniel was elected RNC chair in 2017, at first with Trump’s support, although the former president insisted she drop her maiden name (Romney) to win his support and show loyalty. She was reelected four times and helped to transform the party into the mirror of Trump that it is now.

But Trump eventually turned on her because she refused to crown him the Republican presidential nominee and instead opted for a contested primary. Trump eventually clinched the nomination on his own, but not before he decided he’d rather have two absolute loyalists at the helm of the RNC.

The GOP in general has also soured on McDaniel because she failed massively at the two main parts of her job: fundraising and winning elections—thanks in large part to her embrace of Donald Trump.

By the end of October, the RNC had a little more than $9.1 million in its coffers, the smallest amount in nearly a decade. McDaniel insisted there was “nothing unusual” about the low funds.

Republicans also suffered wave after wave of bruising losses, from the 2022 midterm elections to, most recently, the special election for former representative and serial fabulist George Santos’s seat in New York. The party has largely blamed McDaniel for the defeats, even as many of the failed candidates mostly embraced Trump’s policies and talking points.

So, given the facts that McDaniel was both bad at her job and is now on the outs with her own party, it’s unclear what analysis of value she has to offer NBC. Instead, her hiring looks more like a shameless grab for viewers.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene proposed a vote to oust Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday, offering a sudden challenge to his leadership after supporting his bid for the role just four months ago.

The Georgia lawmaker reportedly filed the motion to vacate Johnson just moments before the House of Representatives voted to pass a $1.2 trillion omnibus bill. It is not yet clear if Greene filed the motion as privileged, which would require time on the House floor.

Moments after the news broke, Greene claimed she’s not yet calling for Johnson to vacate while acknowledging the motion’s filing. Instead, Greene considers it a “warning” and a “pink slip.”

“I do not wish to inflict pain on our conference and throw the House in chaos,” Greene told a crush of reporters outside the Capitol building. “But this is basically a warning and it’s time for us to go through the process, take our time, and find a new speaker of the House that will stand with Republicans and our Republican majority instead of standing with the Democrats.”

Still, even though it’s a warning, Greene did concede that she will force the vote.

“There’s not a time limit on this,” she continued.

“But I’m not saying that that won’t happen in two weeks or it won’t happen in a month or who knows when,” she said. “But I am saying the clock has started, it’s time for our conference to choose a new speaker.”

A formal vote to oust Johnson, however, might see Greene’s cause fall remarkably short. Two of the eight Republicans who voted to eject former Speaker Kevin McCarthy in October have already said that they wouldn’t have any part in a new effort to rid the lower chamber of its speaker.

Tennessee Representative Tim Burchett told Politico that he had “no idea” what Greene was doing and signaled he would not support the cause. South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace also told the outlet she would vote no.

The news follows months of circulating rumors that hinted at growing disdain for the junior party leader, who took the reins of the House in a surprise vote after Republicans cannibalized McCarthy over similar transgressions.

A vote to oust Johnson also holds the potential to completely backfire on Republicans. Democrats could use the opportunity to vote in Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as the speaker, putting a discordant GOP in a position of needing a nearly unanimous vote to maintain their role at the head of the lower chamber. In a vote with full attendance, the conservative party could lose just two Republican votes.

“Speaker Johnson always listens to the concerns of members, but is focused on governing. He will continue to push conservative legislation that secures our border, strengthens our national defense and demonstrates how we’ll grow our majority,” Johnson’s spokesperson, Raj Shah, said in a statement.

This article has been updated.