Trump GOES MUTE as he HIDES on DISASTER SATURDAY

 

MeidasTouch

4.56M subscribers

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump running away to his bunker in Mar-A-Lago on Saturday after all the problems he created. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! MeidasTouch relies on SnapStream to record, watch, monitor, and clip the news. Get a FREE TRIAL of SnapStream by clicking here: https://go.snapstream.com/affiliate/m... Support the MeidasTouch Network:   / meidastouch   Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter:   / meidastouch   Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook:   / meidastouch   Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram:   / meidastouch   Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok:   / meidastouch  

🚨An ANGRY MOB Just Dropped a BOMBSHELL on Pete Hegseth

 

REP. VICTORIA SPARTZ (R-INDIANA) - VOTERS ARE NOT ACCEPTING HER LIES & EXCUSES! 

JEFFREY GOLDBERG carefully scrutinized what he published & omitted the name of the INTELLIGENCCE OPERATIVE who apparently was an ISRAELI embedded with the HOUTIS - it was reported that ISRAEL was outraged & addressed the issue with the American incompetents. If the AMERICAN INCOMPETENTS can't be trusted with CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, other nations will not share it with us - we will be unprotected due to INCOMPETENT BOOBS! PETE HEGSETH was a PUBLIC DRUNK...what more needs to be said? DER SPIEGEL wrote about the private information of the BOOBS being PUBLIC: Private Data and Passwords of Senior U.S. Security Officials Found Online Donald Trump's most important security advisers used Signal to discuss an imminent military strike. Now, reporting by DER SPIEGEL has found that the contact data of some of those officials, including mobile phone numbers, is freely accessible on the internet. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/pete-hegseth-mike-waltz-tulsi-gabbard-private-data-and-passwords-of-senior-u-s-security-officials-found-online-a-14221f90-e5c2-48e5-bc63-10b705521fb7 MICHAEL WALTZ left his VENMO ACCOUNT open & accessible, paid lots of journalists.

How BRAIN DEAD & STUPID is that? He's in charge of what?

The ENTIRE TEAM OF MISFITS & INCOMPETENTS need to be replaced with COMPETENT & EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONALS who will protect the nation!

Occupy Democrats

1.15M subscribers

Donald Trump’s Defense Secretary just got destroyed by an angry mob!

 

The Houthi PC Small Group Joyce Vance Mar 25 The memes may be epic, but it’s no joke. The Signal chat consisted of National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and, as you’ve undoubtedly heard by now, the Editor in Chief of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg. There were others, but Goldberg declined to name at least one of them because of the sensitive nature of their identity given the position they hold in government. Signal is not a secure, approved means of what is referred to in the government as “high side” communication for classified or sensitive information. Goldberg reported on the texts he received after he was invited to join the chat. While he was trying to decide if the group was an attempt to punk him or something legitimate, he received messages including information about timing, targeting, and targets of a possible U.S. attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen. When the attack materialized on schedule over the weekend, he understood that he had somehow been added to a chat among principals. Today, government officials, including White House spokesperson Caroline Leavitt, claimed none of the information was classified. At a previously scheduled hearing of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (On her MSNBC show Monday night, Rachel Maddow said it was happening because “God keeps a calendar”) Maine Senator Angus King questioned Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about how it was possible that the kind of sensitive information that circulated in the chat wasn’t classified. It included attack sequences, timing, weapons, and targets. Gabbard responded that she would “defer to the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council.” King offered a stinging rebuke: “You’re the head of the intelligence community. You’re supposed to know about classifications. So your testimony here today is very clearly that nothing that was in that set of texts were classified. … If that’s the case, then please release that whole text stream so that the public can have a view of what actually transpired on this discussion. It’s hard for me to believe that targets and timing and weapons would not have been classified.” Just last week Gabbard announced she was pursuing “politically motivated leakers” from within the intelligence community and that they would be held accountable. In a string of tweets, she referred to “A leaker who has been sharing classified information with the Huffington Post,” “A leaker within the IC sharing information on Israel / Iran with the Washington Post,” “A leaker within the IC sharing information about the U.S. - Russia relationship with NBC,” and “A leaker sharing information on NCSC activities and actions with The Record.” There was no mention of high ranking officials sharing information with the editor in chief of The Atlantic, but Gabbard did conclude that “Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.” In an interview with ABC, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attacked Goldberg, calling him a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again.” He denied that anyone was texting war plans on the chat. However they want to justify it, from a national security point of view, it’s essential that we back off of the rhetoric and acknowledge this for what it is, a horrible lapse in national security that could have resulted in dead Americans if information had fallen into the Houthis’ hands. There needs to be accountability, real accountability of the kind that comes from a fact-based investigation into how this lapse occurred. It’s not, or at least it shouldn’t be, a matter of politics. Government officials need to understand and obey the rules for secure communications. This is what happens when you confirm people to jobs they are neither suited nor qualified for and their education about the importance of what they do and how they do it needs to happen fast. There should be accountability for any people who intentionally violate the rules. There is, however, no outrage coming from the White House. Trump made his first comments in a brief interview with NBCs Garret Haake, saying, "Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man.” Even Maine’s Republican Senator Susan Collins didn’t fall back on “learned a lesson,” instead calling the incident “inconceivable and “an extremely troubling and serious matter.” Jeffrey Goldberg wrote a book last year called On Heroism, and my Insider Podcast co-host Preet Bharara and I had the pleasure of interviewing him live about it while we were in Austin for the Texas Tribune festival. The book is great, a short collection of Goldberg’s essays, and if you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend it. But it’s the title that sticks with me, especially now, along with the subtitle, “the cowardice of Donald Trump.” In the interview, Goldberg told a story about retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, who was one of Trump’s chiefs of staff during his first term in office. “John Kelly, like Donald Trump … Or unlike Donald Trump, I should say, actually had bone spurs. And John Kelly, when he went to the draft board, they told him, ‘Well, you have bone spurs. You can get out of this.’ John Kelly asked the doctor to lie and say that he didn’t have bone spurs, so he could join the Marines and go fight in Vietnam. So, to me, the symmetry there is so astonishing that one used fake bone spurs to get out of Vietnam, the other pleaded with the doctors in the Marine Corps, ‘Just ignore my bone spurs. It’s not that big a deal. I just want to go serve my country.’” What could allow a commander in chief to dismiss the thought that the actions of his top officials could have put the lives of American soldiers at risk? Trump’s near-contempt for people who serve is well known. He has questioned what’s in it for them, as he infamously asked General Kelly while they stood together at the grave of Kelly’s son in Arlington. When General Mark Milley selected a seriously injured five-tour combat veteran, Louis Avila, to sing “God Bless America” at his welcoming ceremony head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Trump reportedly asked him afterwards, “Why do you bring people like that here? No one wants to see that, the wounded.” According to Milley, he forbade him from letting Avila appear in public again. We have seen great cowardice and great heroism in American public life. But the people who lead our military and intelligence communities have an obligation to the people who put themselves at risk to keep our nation secure. That’s true no matter which party is in office. If the officials responsible for this debacle and the president they serve are inclined to just wave it off, it is up to Congress to protect the men and women who serve all of us, and who deserve better than this. The blatant carelessness and disregard of it all should be unbelievable. Sadly, it isn’t. We’re in this together, Joyce

 

SO MUCH HAS HAPPENED, IT''S DIFFICULT TO KEEP UP, BUT THE 

INSIGHT & OPINION OF JOYCE VANCE IS ALWAYS WORTH READING...

Alien Enemies Act

Joyce Vance Mar 25

Last week, a resolution calling for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, who is hearing the challenge to Trump’s authority under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), was filed in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Gill, Crane, Collins, Carter, Moore, and Clyde. They accuse the Judge of “abuse of power.”

The resolution claims, as has the Trump administration in court, that the President has “sole and unreviewable discretion” to invoke the AEA and “to determine whether an invasion has taken place” that would merit removal of alien enemies from the United States. The resolution calls for the Judge’s impeachment because he “used the powers of his position to engage in actions that overstep his judicial authority. By making a political decision outside the scope of his judicial duties, he compromised the impartiality of our judicial system and created a constitutional crisis.”

Specifically, the resolution claims that courts can’t second guess a president's determination that we’ve been invaded for purposes of the AEA. They maintain that would be tantamount to interfering with the president’s political judgments, an area courts should not delve into. They refer to a 1948 Supreme Court case, Ludecke v. Watkins, which they claim establishes a “binding precedent” that prohibits courts from interfering in a case like this, “for which judges have neither technical competence nor official responsibility.”

The claims made in the impeachment resolution are a more political distillation of the arguments the government raised before a three-judge appellate panel consisting of Judges Henderson, Millett, and Walker in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Monday afternoon. The government wants to get out from under the temporary restraining order (TRO) Judge Boasberg entered that prohibits the government from continuing to remove people it claims are members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Their argument isn’t about whether the government violated the TRO, although they maintain they haven’t, but rather about whether the Judge had the jurisdiction to impose it in the first place.

The government has three basic arguments:

• Even though TROs aren’t usually appealable, the one entered by Judge Boasberg is because the court is interfering with presidential powers.

• The court lacked jurisdiction to enter the TRO in the first place, because the president’s AEA proclamation can’t be reviewed by the courts. This argument is problematic for the government. It’s based on Ludecke, where the Supreme Court concluded the president’s finding we were still at war several years after combat in World War II ended couldn’t be reviewed by the courts. However, SCOTUS also acknowledged courts can review whether an individual qualifies under a president’s AEA proclamation as “an alien enemy” who is deportable. Much of the thrust of the arguments made by the plaintiffs—the people the government has or seeks to deport—were centered here.

• The core of the plaintiffs’ arguments is a request for habeas corpus (a process for challenging the legality of a person’s detention or imprisonment). Habeas actions must be brought where the plaintiff is kept in custody. Since the five plaintiffs the case started with (there is now a TRO that applies to a larger class of an unknown number of people in the same situation as the original plaintiffs) were all housed in Texas, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is improper because it was filed in Washington D.C. The plaintiffs rejected the idea the case was grounded in habeas, pointed to the fact that the government has refused to tell them how many, let alone where, the people in their class are, and identified D.C. as a more convenient forum because key defendants like the attorney general are located there.

After a hearing that went on for almost twice as long as anticipated, it wasn’t entirely clear where the panel would land. It’s important to understand the state of play: Judge Boasberg’s TRO only applies to people being deported solely under the Alien Enemies Act. People who have pre-existing orders of deportation, for instance, can continue to be deported.

Before the hearing started, Judge Boasberg rejected the administration’s request that he rescind the TRO. The Judge noted that Venezuelans slated for deportation under the AEA are likely to win because of the total denial of due process that’s been in place before they are deported. At least at the TRO stage, this seems like the position the panel could land on, unless two judges agree the case couldn’t be brought in the District of Columbia.

It was clear during oral argument that the government’s lawyer wanted to focus on the fact that the five named plaintiffs were able to file a lawsuit. What he danced around were questions about the people on the planes and whether they had the same opportunity. He made a woefully disingenuous argument in an effort to dodge the fact that they’d had little if any notice they were about to be deported and imprisoned and no access to lawyers to file suit in Texas before that happened to them.

Judge Patricia Millett concluded, “Nazis got better treatment.” She said that at least suspected Nazis had hearing boards before they were deported.

This case is about the way the government is treating a very narrow slice of people it seeks to deport, trying to use presidential authority meant for wartime against people it claims—apparently in a number of cases wrongfully so—are gang members, a process that seems at odds with a law that permits presidents to deport alien enemies when we are at war.

If these people have committed crimes, they can be prosecuted. If they’ve engaged in conduct that makes them deportable, they can be deported. But the lawsuit is about the principle that they can’t be sent to a Salvadoran prison without due process, no matter who they are and what they’ve done. Our systems go to great lengths, sometimes protecting people whose views we vehemently disagree with or giving due process rights to violent criminals, in order to ensure that all of us have those rights available to us when we need them. That’s what’s at stake here; this is about our rights too.

The plaintiffs wrote about it eloquently in their brief to the Court of Appeals, providing a common-sense summation of what the Trump administration is doing. If a president can single out any group as qualifying enemies under the AEA, and the courts can’t review that decision, then any one of us can be sent off to a foreign prison.

What’s at stake here is American democracy. It’s clear we’re going to have to fight for it again and again during this administration.

If people have no opportunity to contest the legality of actions the government takes against them, if grotesque injustice is being layered on top of grotesque injustice by our government in our name, it becomes increasingly difficult to call ourselves a democracy. So don’t be misled by the labels the Trump administration applies to people whose rights it is intent on violating: gang members, violent criminals. These people could be anyone. We just don’t know because they weren’t given due process and a hearing. What’s certain is that if the administration gets away with it, they’ll do it again, and it could happen to anyone. That’s why we need to draw the line here and now and firmly.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

If you haven’t already, I’d love it if you would preorder my book, Giving Up is Unforgivable.

Exclusive: WI Dem Chair Says Elon Musk Committed State Felony CORPORATE MEDIA IS NOT REPORTING THIS!

 

TRUMP DESTROYED FARMERS DURING HIS FIRST REIGN!

TRUMP IS GONNA DO IT AGAIN!

LET'S WORK TOGETHER & PROTECT ONE ANOTHER! 

Watch now

Exclusive: WI Dem Chair Says Elon Musk Committed State Felony

I spoke with Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler about Musk's attack on democracy, his attempt to buy the state's Supreme Court seat, and more.

Ben Meiselas and MeidasTouch Network Mar 29

By Ben Meiselas

Donald Trump dressed up like a damn garbage man in Wisconsin and said he alone could fix everything. Prices? Fixed. Ukraine war? Solved in 24 hours. Housing? No problem. Except, of course, he was lying—and now, voters in Wisconsin are absolutely furious.

That’s part of what I discussed with Ben Wikler, Chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, in our latest interview. Because while Trump’s MAGA cosplay and broken promises were ridiculous enough, what’s happening now is downright criminal.

Elon Musk—yes, the same billionaire who thinks laws don’t apply to him—is trying to literally buy a Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin. Musk posted (and later deleted, and reposted) a tweet offering $1 million each to people who show up to a town hall after voting in the critical Wisconsin Supreme Court election. He even made attendance contingent on proof of voting.

Wikler was blunt: that’s illegal. Under Wisconsin law, promising anything of value—even a dollar—to induce someone to vote is a felony. Musk offered millions.

And who’s the guy Musk is trying to help win? MAGA loyalist Brad Schimel—a man who dressed up like Trump for Halloween and proudly called it an “honor” to be the named defendant in a Planned Parenthood case. This isn’t just a race—it’s a test of whether billionaires can buy our courts and crush democracy in the process.

Schimel’s opponent, Judge Susan Crawford, couldn’t be a sharper contrast. She’s a proven public servant who’s defended reproductive freedom, voting rights, workers’ rights—and who applies the law equally, whether you're Elon Musk or an everyday Wisconsinite.

So here’s the bottom line: this is a must-win election. It’s about stopping Trump, stopping Musk, and stopping MAGA extremism from taking over our courts. But most of all, it’s about showing that our democracy isn’t for sale.

To those who want to fight back, visit CrawfordForWI.com and WisDems.org to learn more. Volunteer. Knock on doors. Make calls. Because what happens in Wisconsin could decide the future of this country.

Let’s show the oligarchs that no matter how much money they throw around, the people still have the power.

Let’s keep this momentum going. Add the MeidasTouch Podcast on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Meidas+, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

This nation has a DEBT to PAY! 

Also note that these MAGA DOGE clowns slashed USAID that was funding the CLEANUP of AGENT ORANGE in VIETNAM. The funding abruptly was cut & workers abandoned the CLEANUP leaving AGENT ORANGE uncovered in VIETNAM's rainy season allowed the contamination to flow into rivers. 

FROM AMERICA AMERCA by STEVEN BESCHLOSS:

The Trump regime’s reckless mishandling of a promised Agent Orange cleanup in Vietnam is the topic of a well-reported ProPublica story that Mark Jacob and I highlight in a new On-Target video. This deadly contamination dates back to the spraying of 10 million gallons of the toxic chemical during the Vietnam War, leading to the deaths of over 300,000 U.S. veterans and over 400,000 Vietnamese people. The cleanup of still highly poisoned soil has been a critical component to building a positive relationship with Vietnam and securing annual commerce of $160 billion.

The result of this careless cutting? Undermining the credibility of America in Vietnam and around the world as it pulls back on commitments made under USAID, the foreign aid agency under attack by Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

Jacob is author of the excellent “Stop the Presses” newsletter. Check it out if you haven’t already. 

IF YOU'RE NOT ANGRY, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! 

Destroying GOVERNMENT to fund TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY? 

TARIFF LUNACY for DEMENTIA DON? 

DEPORTING PEOPLE simply because you disagree with them? It's called FASCISM. 

President Biden created an economy  that was the envy of the World & DEMENTIA DON is destroying it. 

There are NO ADULTS in the room because he fired them! Surrounds himself with BRAIN DEAD LACKEYS!  Nothing like it!