Donald Trump has again demanded the Pulitzer prize board rescind the prize for national reporting awarded to the New York Times and Washington Post in 2018, for exposing Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow.
The award was shared by the two organisations for “deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest” which judges said “dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election”.
Both organisations have stood by stories which unearthed detailed revelations about Russian election interference and the Trump administration’s efforts to interfere in investigations.
Nonetheless, in a letter to the Pulitzer prize interim administrator, Bud Kliment, the former president repeated a demand first made in 2019.
Alleging “false reporting of a non-existent link between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign” and calling the papers’ work “a politically motivated farce”, Trump, whose administration never managed to stop a stream of leaks, also complained about anonymous sourcing.
[... ... ... ...]
Trump concluded his letter by saying Post and Times reporters should “voluntarily surrender this award” or be stripped of it. The Pulitzer prize board did not comment. Nor did the Times or the Post.
Donald Trump has just filed a lawsuit to block the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack from being granted access to a mountain of documents from his four years as president held by the National Archives.
Legal experts are weighing in on this latest attempt by the former president to obstruct a lawful investigation.
NBC News reports Trump's lawsuit "says the committee's subpoena is invalid because it has no power of investigation," and it "says the material should be protected by executive privilege," which is also false, according to countless legal experts who have been commenting on that claim for weeks.
Trump is "requesting that the court invalidate the committee's requests and enjoin the archivist from turning over the records in question. At a bare minimum, the court should enjoin the archivist from producing any potentially privileged records until President Trump is able to conduct a full privilege review of all of the requested materials."
Reminder: the Trump lawsuit means nothing if he doesn’t file an immediate motion for a temporary restraining order… https://t.co/mrrFPm35pV
— Bradley P. Moss (@Bradley P. Moss) 1634592883.0
I cannot stop laughing at the pathetic premise of Trump's lawsuit that the Presidential Records Act must be unconst… https://t.co/XDsnUpXFky
— Bradley P. Moss (@Bradley P. Moss) 1634590687.0
This rivals the Kraken lawsuits for poorly written lawsuits. I can’t even with this …. https://t.co/n4LK0KxjHb
— Bradley P. Moss (@Bradley P. Moss) 1634590356.0
CNN's Keith Boykin, a former Clinton White House aide who has a law degree from Harvard Law weighed in on the news by blasting Trump, saying: “This guy has spent his entire career bluffing his way through life, evading responsibility, dodging accountability, and filing frivolous lawsuits to distract and delay. Justice means nothing in America if Trump is not held accountable for his crimes."
Attorney and upcoming author Luppe B. Luppen:
Trump’s team is seeking either a judicial declaration that the 1/6 committee lacks a legislative purpose (which has… https://t.co/vV5wdGuNtv
— southpaw (@southpaw) 1634592457.0
Former Obama White House attorney, now a Law Professor at Cardozo Law and Supreme Court contributor for ABC News calls the suit "remarkably thin."
Trump’s lawsuit seeking to prevent the archivist from turning records over to the January 6 Committee is remarkably… https://t.co/oFnFtKTO0h
— Kate Shaw (@Kate Shaw) 1634595605.0
Trump stacked the jury.
He's as guilty as ****.
It takes an extreme formof sycophanthy to pretend otherwise.
If someone lied and cheated and was caught multiple times then it makes sense to question that person's integrity.
Aren't denials more believable when there's evidence to back up your story? Then the accusations can be shown as false. They're not "ridiculous" until they're fully exposed so I don't think Trump is helping his case here.
The only lying by Trump I am aware of is when he says that something is "the best" or "the worst" when something is merely very good or very bad. Give one example of how he cheated. If you can't then your statement is worth nothing. You liberals like to roam the board spitting out broad generalities and then, if asked for any specifics, throw a fit.
Trump seemed smart enough to have a great economy, keep the border secure, know China is an enemy, and be generally competent
"Wonderful to see Colin Powell, who made big mistakes on Iraq and famously, so-called weapons of mass destruction,
be treated in death so beautifully by the Fake News Media," Trump said in a statement released Tuesday morning.
"Hope that happens to me someday. He was a classic RINO, if even that, always being the first to attack other
Republicans. He made plenty of mistakes, but anyway, may he rest in peace!"