Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
April 7, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/iran-war-2676674050/
Iran promises regional war in response to Trump threat: 'Restraint has come to an end'
Iran still has a large percentage of its drones and missiles and can inflict a great deal of damage on our Gulf allies.
Iran promises regional war in response to Trump threat: 'Restraint has come to an end' #RawStory
— #TuckFrump (@realtuckfrumper.bsky.social) 2026-04-07T13:36:19.000Z
https://www.rawstory.com/iran-war-2676674050/
Iran responded to President Donald Trump’s looming threat Tuesday with a threat of their own: to lift all “self-restraint” by launching a large-scale attack on energy infrastructure across the Persian Gulf and deprive the United States “of the region’s oil and gas for years.”
“Our self-restraint has come to an end,” reads a statement from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s military apparatus, as reported by the Kurdish news outlet Kurdistan 24.
“America’s partners in the region must know that until today, we have restrained ourselves for the sake of good neighborliness… however, we are now lifting the immunity provided by our previous tolerance. Our focus will be solely on the targets and on seeking revenge.”
Trump has repeatedly demanded that Iran lift restrictions for U.S.-aligned vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping channel through which a fifth of the world’s oil trade flows. Amid ongoing U.S.-Israeli attacks, Iran has refused, and in mid-March, Trump gave Iran 48 hours to re-open the Strait of Hormuz or face the destruction of its power plants.
“Our self-restraint has come to an end,” reads a statement from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s military apparatus, as reported by the Kurdish news outlet Kurdistan 24.
“America’s partners in the region must know that until today, we have restrained ourselves for the sake of good neighborliness… however, we are now lifting the immunity provided by our previous tolerance. Our focus will be solely on the targets and on seeking revenge.”
Trump has repeatedly demanded that Iran lift restrictions for U.S.-aligned vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping channel through which a fifth of the world’s oil trade flows. Amid ongoing U.S.-Israeli attacks, Iran has refused, and in mid-March, Trump gave Iran 48 hours to re-open the Strait of Hormuz or face the destruction of its power plants.
April 7, 2026
MaddowBlog-Pressed on possible war crimes, Trump peddled 3 answers. They were all unacceptable.
The president has had plenty of time to prepare coherent answers to obvious questions. He hasn’t used that time wisely.
https://x.com/Infiniteridler/status/2041539962470883613
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-on-possible-war-crimes-trump-peddled-3-answers-they-were-all-unacceptable
After months of rhetoric about possible war crimes in Iran, Donald Trump upped the ante on Sunday morning, publishing an unhinged threat to his social media platform in which he explicitly vowed to target Iranian power plants and bridges. As Easter Sunday progressed, the president did brief interviews with several media outlets to echo that point.....
The president, who must have realized he’d face these questions and had plenty of time to huddle with his aides and prepare coherent answers, peddled three distinct responses to the line of inquiry.
1. Refuse to talk about his plans for possible war crimes. MS NOW’s Lindsey Pipia asked, “Are you committed to committing a war crime in this war with Iran?” Trump heard the question but refused to answer it. “What else?” he said to no one in particular, as if the question wasn’t worth his time or consideration.
2. Change the definition of “war crime.” As part of a separate exchange, Trump was asked whether he considered hitting civilian infrastructure to be a war crime. “You know what’s a war crime?” he responded. “Having a nuclear weapon, allowing a sick country with demented leaders to have a nuclear weapon. That’s a war crime.”....
3. War crimes are fine, because Iranian leaders are bad. Asked how U.S. military strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure wouldn’t be a war crime, Trump pointed to the Iranian government killing Iranian protesters. “They kill protesters,” the president said, claiming Tehran had slaughtered tens of thousands of its own people. “They’re animals.”
Or, put another way, as far as the Republican sees it, the United States would be justified in committing war crimes because Iran deserves it — a line that is every bit as morally abhorrent as it appeared.
This is not simply an academic exercise: Trump has set a deadline for 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday by which he expects Iranian officials to accept his demands. If not, in the words of the American president, he’s prepared to “blow up the whole country.”
The president, who must have realized he’d face these questions and had plenty of time to huddle with his aides and prepare coherent answers, peddled three distinct responses to the line of inquiry.
1. Refuse to talk about his plans for possible war crimes. MS NOW’s Lindsey Pipia asked, “Are you committed to committing a war crime in this war with Iran?” Trump heard the question but refused to answer it. “What else?” he said to no one in particular, as if the question wasn’t worth his time or consideration.
Q: Are you committing a war crime?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-04-06T15:42:40.701Z
TRUMP: *refuses to answer* What else?
2. Change the definition of “war crime.” As part of a separate exchange, Trump was asked whether he considered hitting civilian infrastructure to be a war crime. “You know what’s a war crime?” he responded. “Having a nuclear weapon, allowing a sick country with demented leaders to have a nuclear weapon. That’s a war crime.”....
3. War crimes are fine, because Iranian leaders are bad. Asked how U.S. military strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure wouldn’t be a war crime, Trump pointed to the Iranian government killing Iranian protesters. “They kill protesters,” the president said, claiming Tehran had slaughtered tens of thousands of its own people. “They’re animals.”
Q: How would it not be a war crime to strike Iran's bridges and power plants?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-04-06T16:01:40.467Z
TRUMP: Because they killed 45,000 in the last month. They kill protesters. They are animals.
Or, put another way, as far as the Republican sees it, the United States would be justified in committing war crimes because Iran deserves it — a line that is every bit as morally abhorrent as it appeared.
This is not simply an academic exercise: Trump has set a deadline for 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday by which he expects Iranian officials to accept his demands. If not, in the words of the American president, he’s prepared to “blow up the whole country.”
April 7, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/team-trump-leans-into-religious-messaging-claims-god-supports-u-s-war-in-iran
MaddowBlog-Team Trump leans into religious messaging, claims God supports U.S. war in Iran
An increasingly unstable leader is insisting that he has divine support for his military ambitions. When has that ever gone wrong in world history?
An increasingly unstable, authoritarian-style leader, who’s threatening war crimes, is convinced that he enjoys divine support for his military ambitions.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-04-07T15:30:47.770Z
And when has that ever gone wrong in world history?
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/team-trump-leans-into-religious-messaging-claims-god-supports-u-s-war-in-iran
To be sure, the assessment of officials in Tehran was more than fair, though given what Americans have heard from those seated near the secretary of state, there was a degree of irony to the criticisms. As CNN summarized:
Even in an administration in which references to Christian nationalism have become routine, Monday offered several examples of the broader phenomenon:
....What the world is confronting, in other words, is an increasingly unstable leader, threatening to commit war crimes, while insisting that he has divine support for his military ambitions.
And when has that ever gone wrong in world history?
Far from shying away from the idea that there is a religious aspect to the US-Israeli war on Iran, US government leaders are leaning into it, invoking God and promising fire and brimstone for Iran’s civil society if its leaders do not buckle to US demands.
Even in an administration in which references to Christian nationalism have become routine, Monday offered several examples of the broader phenomenon:
Asked if he believes God supports U.S. actions in Iran, Donald Trump replied, “I do, because God is good, because God is good and God wants to see people taken care of.” He did not elaborate on who is being “taken care of” through U.S. bombing campaigns.
At the same news conference, the president claimed he was in a position to convey God’s wishes to the public. “God doesn’t like what’s happening,” he added.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explicitly likened the rescue of a missing American airman shot down over Iran to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. “God is good,” he concluded.
Trump thanked God for “watching” over U.S. forces as they searched for a downed American fighter pilot.
Trump: "God was watching us. We were in Easter territory, I guess."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-04-06T17:24:29.831Z
....What the world is confronting, in other words, is an increasingly unstable leader, threatening to commit war crimes, while insisting that he has divine support for his military ambitions.
And when has that ever gone wrong in world history?
April 7, 2026
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/iran-offers-strait-in-exchange-for
The Borowitz Report-Iran Offers Strait in Exchange for Straitjacket
Iran Offers Strait in Exchange for Straitjacket
— Rhonda Jensen (@rrrjjensen.bsky.social) 2026-04-07T00:48:07.277Z
open.substack.com/pub/borowitz...
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/iran-offers-strait-in-exchange-for
TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report)—In what is being hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, in the early hours of Tuesday the government of Iran offered the US a peace plan which insiders say trades a strait for a straitjacket.
Although details have yet to be hammered out, the Iranian proposal drew enthusiastic praise from over a hundred world leaders including France’s Emmanuel Macron and Canada’s Mark Carney, who called it “long overdue.”
As news of the offer spread around the world, spontaneous dancing broke out in the streets of such cities as London, Berlin, and Nuuk, the capital of Greenland.
According to those familiar with the offer, the Iranians revised the US peace plan and added a 25th amendment.
Although details have yet to be hammered out, the Iranian proposal drew enthusiastic praise from over a hundred world leaders including France’s Emmanuel Macron and Canada’s Mark Carney, who called it “long overdue.”
As news of the offer spread around the world, spontaneous dancing broke out in the streets of such cities as London, Berlin, and Nuuk, the capital of Greenland.
According to those familiar with the offer, the Iranians revised the US peace plan and added a 25th amendment.
April 6, 2026
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-tariffs-mark-levin
Deadline Legal Blog-After the rough birthright citizenship hearing, Trump makes a social media appeal
“The Country can only withstand so many bad decisions from a Court that just doesn’t seem to care,” the president wrote.
After the rough birthright citizenship hearing, Trump makes a social media appeal - MS NOW
— (@oc88.bsky.social) 2026-04-06T18:08:06.466Z
apple.news/Az2xcxgKwSLi...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-tariffs-mark-levin
The U.S. isn’t the only country with birthright citizenship. But the president’s emotional reaction reflected his apparent understanding that he will likely lose the case when the justices rule later in the spring or early summer. Indeed, Trump telegraphed his resignation to the probable defeat long before the oral argument, when he wrote on Truth Social in February that the court “will find a way to come to the wrong conclusion” on citizenship, like it did when he lost the tariffs case.
The president doesn’t seem any more confident in the days after the hearing. In a social media post that published at 12:57 a.m. ET on Monday, he wrote:
Nothing is stopping Supreme Court justices from watching or studying Mark Levin’s Fox News show. But Trump’s social media complaint makes the same mistake that Solicitor General John Sauer did last week during oral argument, by harping on policy consequences rather than focusing solely on the legal issues. That the president continues to lump the citizenship appeal in with the tariffs case further shows that he, like other observers, expects this one to be another rare loss for his administration on a key issue.
The president doesn’t seem any more confident in the days after the hearing. In a social media post that published at 12:57 a.m. ET on Monday, he wrote:
It’s too bad that the Supreme Court can’t watch and study the Mark Levin Show tonight on the Birthright Citizenship Scam. If they saw it they would never allow that money making HOAX to continue. THEY SHOULD USE THEIR POWERS OF COMMON SENSE FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY. They failed miserably on Tariffs, needlessly costing the USA Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in potential rebates for the benefit haters and scammers. Why??? Don’t do it again! The Country can only withstand so many bad decisions from a Court that just doesn’t seem to care.
Nothing is stopping Supreme Court justices from watching or studying Mark Levin’s Fox News show. But Trump’s social media complaint makes the same mistake that Solicitor General John Sauer did last week during oral argument, by harping on policy consequences rather than focusing solely on the legal issues. That the president continues to lump the citizenship appeal in with the tariffs case further shows that he, like other observers, expects this one to be another rare loss for his administration on a key issue.
April 6, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-abandons-all-subtlety-with-talk-of-possible-war-crimes-in-iran
MaddowBlog-Trump abandons all subtlety with talk of possible war crimes in Iran
As the president weighs strikes on civilian targets in Iran, the video from Democratic veterans about rejecting illegal orders is newly relevant.
As Trump leans into possible war crimes in Iran, that “don’t follow illegal orders†video from Democratic veterans — and the hysterical White House response — is relevant anew.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-04-06T15:50:26.130Z
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-abandons-all-subtlety-with-talk-of-possible-war-crimes-in-iran
As the third week of the war with Iran came to an end, Donald Trump published a different kind of threat to his social media platform: If Iran failed to fully open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, he wrote, the United States would start destroying civilian power plants in the country.....
Trump’s Easter morning madness generated headlines for various reasons, but among the more notable was that his online missive included explicit vows to target Iranian power plants and bridges. As the day progressed, the president did brief, one-on-one interviews with several media outlets to echo that point. The Wall Street Journal reported:
Other news organizations heard similar comments. Trump told ABC News, for example, that he’s prepared to “blow up the whole country.” He also told Fox News, “I’m considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil.”.....
The New York Times reported on the degree to which the president has steered the nation in radical directions:
......Nearly six months ago, six Democratic military and intelligence veterans appeared in a video to urge service members to reject illegal orders. This sparked apoplexy within the administration, as if it were outrageous to remind service members to follow the law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Trump’s Justice Department ultimately tried to indict the lawmakers on charges of seditious conspiracy — charges that, if they resulted in a conviction, would have sent the lawmakers to prison for many years. Regular citizens on the grand jury rebuffed the ridiculous gambit in late February.)
The White House’s hysterics about that video and its emphasis on service members following the law is newly relevant as Trump weighs the possibility of war crimes.
Trump’s Easter morning madness generated headlines for various reasons, but among the more notable was that his online missive included explicit vows to target Iranian power plants and bridges. As the day progressed, the president did brief, one-on-one interviews with several media outlets to echo that point. The Wall Street Journal reported:
President Trump threatened to destroy all of Iran’s power plants if the country’s leaders don’t agree to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by Tuesday evening, ratcheting up pressure on Tehran.
‘If they don’t come through, if they want to keep it closed, they’re going to lose every power plant and every other plant they have in the whole country,’ Trump said in an eight-minute interview with The Wall Street Journal on Sunday.
Other news organizations heard similar comments. Trump told ABC News, for example, that he’s prepared to “blow up the whole country.” He also told Fox News, “I’m considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil.”.....
The New York Times reported on the degree to which the president has steered the nation in radical directions:
No other recent American president has talked so openly about committing potential war crimes, legal experts, historians and former U.S. officials say. Wartime American presidents and their aides have usually insisted they were trying to follow international and U.S. military law, even if they violated it in some cases.
International laws aimed at preventing the horrors of total war are codified in a series of agreements, including the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter. Deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure violate those. So does pillaging a country, which Mr. Trump has suggested he might do by taking Iran’s oil.
......Nearly six months ago, six Democratic military and intelligence veterans appeared in a video to urge service members to reject illegal orders. This sparked apoplexy within the administration, as if it were outrageous to remind service members to follow the law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Trump’s Justice Department ultimately tried to indict the lawmakers on charges of seditious conspiracy — charges that, if they resulted in a conviction, would have sent the lawmakers to prison for many years. Regular citizens on the grand jury rebuffed the ridiculous gambit in late February.)
The White House’s hysterics about that video and its emphasis on service members following the law is newly relevant as Trump weighs the possibility of war crimes.
April 6, 2026
trump could end up like Putin and being unable to leave the US and visit any country that respects international law.
Trump Revels in Threats to Commit War Crimes in Iran (NYT Gift link)
The president said he would bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages.” Until this administration, American leaders had insisted they were trying to follow international law in war.
https://x.com/MarkCranfield_/status/2041048697086026179
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/05/us/politics/trump-iran-war-crimes-truth-social.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Y1A.BMK1.zXHp4c4xnLbY&smid=tw-share
Power plants, desalination stations, oil wells, roads, bridges and other infrastructure.
They are the foundations of civilian life in Iran, and their destruction by American and Israeli forces would cause widespread suffering among the country’s 93 million people — and in most cases would be considered a war crime under international law.....
The president was emphatic about the targets in a follow-up post: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH. Praise be to Allah.”,.....
No other recent American president has talked so openly about committing potential war crimes, legal experts, historians and former U.S. officials say. Wartime American presidents and their aides have usually insisted they were trying to follow international and U.S. military law, even if they violated it in some cases.
International laws aimed at preventing the horrors of total war are codified in a series of agreements, including the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter. Deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure violate those. So does pillaging a country, which Mr. Trump has suggested he might do by taking Iran’s oil.....
The American president has been unambiguous in his disdain for international law. In a two-hour Oval Office interview in January with The New York Times, Mr. Trump declared, “I don’t need international law.” When asked whether there was any limit on his global powers, he said, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality.”....
The administration’s language has alarmed many legal experts, who say the signal being sent to U.S. service members — and to foreign nations, including adversaries — shapes behavior on the battlefield.
One hundred legal experts and lawyers voiced their concerns in an open letter published by Just Security last week. They said that the conduct of the war and rhetoric of U.S. officials “raise serious concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.”
They pointed out that the very act of the United States’ attacking Iran is a violation of the U.N. Charter, since there is no evidence Mr. Trump was acting to defend his country against an imminent threat. And the president did not get congressional authorization for the war, in violation of the Constitution......
During a standoff with Iran in his first administration, Mr. Trump threatened to destroy 52 cultural sites in the country. Mark T. Esper, then the defense secretary, acknowledged that hitting such sites would be a war crime and said the Pentagon would not do it.
The second Trump administration has taken a different approach.
They are the foundations of civilian life in Iran, and their destruction by American and Israeli forces would cause widespread suffering among the country’s 93 million people — and in most cases would be considered a war crime under international law.....
The president was emphatic about the targets in a follow-up post: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH. Praise be to Allah.”,.....
No other recent American president has talked so openly about committing potential war crimes, legal experts, historians and former U.S. officials say. Wartime American presidents and their aides have usually insisted they were trying to follow international and U.S. military law, even if they violated it in some cases.
International laws aimed at preventing the horrors of total war are codified in a series of agreements, including the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter. Deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure violate those. So does pillaging a country, which Mr. Trump has suggested he might do by taking Iran’s oil.....
The American president has been unambiguous in his disdain for international law. In a two-hour Oval Office interview in January with The New York Times, Mr. Trump declared, “I don’t need international law.” When asked whether there was any limit on his global powers, he said, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality.”....
The administration’s language has alarmed many legal experts, who say the signal being sent to U.S. service members — and to foreign nations, including adversaries — shapes behavior on the battlefield.
One hundred legal experts and lawyers voiced their concerns in an open letter published by Just Security last week. They said that the conduct of the war and rhetoric of U.S. officials “raise serious concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.”
They pointed out that the very act of the United States’ attacking Iran is a violation of the U.N. Charter, since there is no evidence Mr. Trump was acting to defend his country against an imminent threat. And the president did not get congressional authorization for the war, in violation of the Constitution......
During a standoff with Iran in his first administration, Mr. Trump threatened to destroy 52 cultural sites in the country. Mark T. Esper, then the defense secretary, acknowledged that hitting such sites would be a war crime and said the Pentagon would not do it.
The second Trump administration has taken a different approach.
trump could end up like Putin and being unable to leave the US and visit any country that respects international law.
April 6, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-california-endorsement
Trump just handed California Dems an overnight gift with surprise endorsement: report
There are a large number of Democrats running for Governor in California who have split the vote. There are two republicans running and right now these two republicans have been the top two vote getters in several polls. There is a risk due to the jungle primary that the two republicans could be the top two vote getters and would be the only candidates on the November ballot. trump's endorsement has pissed off the California republican party
Donald Trump has done the one thing California Republicans begged him not to do — and in doing so, may have handed the governor's race to Democrats, Politico is reporting.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-04-06T13:50:44Z
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-california-endorsement
Donald Trump has done the one thing California Republicans begged him not to do — and in doing so, may have handed the governor's race to Democrats, Politico is reporting.
Late Sunday night, Trump endorsed Fox News personality Steve Hilton for California governor on Truth Social, potentially delivering a fatal blow to GOP rival Chad Bianco's campaign and demolishing Republican hopes of keeping Democrats out of the runoff.....
The endorsement represents a stunning act of political self-sabotage. California Republicans had explicitly argued that their narrow path to the governor's mansion depended on Trump staying completely out of the race.
The strategy was simple: in California's "jungle primary," a large Democratic field would split the vote, potentially allowing two Republicans — Hilton and Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff — to evenly divide GOP support and advance to the runoff while locking out Democrats.
Trump's endorsement destroys that calculus entirely. By boosting Hilton, he makes it far less likely that both Republicans can split the vote evenly and keep Democrats out of the general election.
The political damage extends beyond the primary dynamics. Political data expert Rob Pyers of California Target Book explained the cascading consequences: "Trump's endorsement of Steve Hilton likely frees up tens of millions of dollars for Democratic groups who would have otherwise had to spend heavily to elevate one of the two leading GOP gubernatorial candidates to avoid a Democratic lockout."
Late Sunday night, Trump endorsed Fox News personality Steve Hilton for California governor on Truth Social, potentially delivering a fatal blow to GOP rival Chad Bianco's campaign and demolishing Republican hopes of keeping Democrats out of the runoff.....
The endorsement represents a stunning act of political self-sabotage. California Republicans had explicitly argued that their narrow path to the governor's mansion depended on Trump staying completely out of the race.
The strategy was simple: in California's "jungle primary," a large Democratic field would split the vote, potentially allowing two Republicans — Hilton and Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff — to evenly divide GOP support and advance to the runoff while locking out Democrats.
Trump's endorsement destroys that calculus entirely. By boosting Hilton, he makes it far less likely that both Republicans can split the vote evenly and keep Democrats out of the general election.
The political damage extends beyond the primary dynamics. Political data expert Rob Pyers of California Target Book explained the cascading consequences: "Trump's endorsement of Steve Hilton likely frees up tens of millions of dollars for Democratic groups who would have otherwise had to spend heavily to elevate one of the two leading GOP gubernatorial candidates to avoid a Democratic lockout."
April 6, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-california-endorsement
Trump just handed California Dems an overnight gift with surprise endorsement: report
There are a large number of Democrats running for Governor in California who have split the vote. There are two republicans running and right now these two republicans have been the top two vote getters in several polls. There is a risk due to the jungle primary that the two republicans could be the top two vote getters and would be the only candidates on the November ballot. trump's endorsement has pissed off the California republican party
Donald Trump has done the one thing California Republicans begged him not to do — and in doing so, may have handed the governor's race to Democrats, Politico is reporting.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-04-06T13:50:44Z
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-california-endorsement
Donald Trump has done the one thing California Republicans begged him not to do — and in doing so, may have handed the governor's race to Democrats, Politico is reporting.
Late Sunday night, Trump endorsed Fox News personality Steve Hilton for California governor on Truth Social, potentially delivering a fatal blow to GOP rival Chad Bianco's campaign and demolishing Republican hopes of keeping Democrats out of the runoff.....
The endorsement represents a stunning act of political self-sabotage. California Republicans had explicitly argued that their narrow path to the governor's mansion depended on Trump staying completely out of the race.
The strategy was simple: in California's "jungle primary," a large Democratic field would split the vote, potentially allowing two Republicans — Hilton and Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff — to evenly divide GOP support and advance to the runoff while locking out Democrats.
Trump's endorsement destroys that calculus entirely. By boosting Hilton, he makes it far less likely that both Republicans can split the vote evenly and keep Democrats out of the general election.
The political damage extends beyond the primary dynamics. Political data expert Rob Pyers of California Target Book explained the cascading consequences: "Trump's endorsement of Steve Hilton likely frees up tens of millions of dollars for Democratic groups who would have otherwise had to spend heavily to elevate one of the two leading GOP gubernatorial candidates to avoid a Democratic lockout."
Late Sunday night, Trump endorsed Fox News personality Steve Hilton for California governor on Truth Social, potentially delivering a fatal blow to GOP rival Chad Bianco's campaign and demolishing Republican hopes of keeping Democrats out of the runoff.....
The endorsement represents a stunning act of political self-sabotage. California Republicans had explicitly argued that their narrow path to the governor's mansion depended on Trump staying completely out of the race.
The strategy was simple: in California's "jungle primary," a large Democratic field would split the vote, potentially allowing two Republicans — Hilton and Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff — to evenly divide GOP support and advance to the runoff while locking out Democrats.
Trump's endorsement destroys that calculus entirely. By boosting Hilton, he makes it far less likely that both Republicans can split the vote evenly and keep Democrats out of the general election.
The political damage extends beyond the primary dynamics. Political data expert Rob Pyers of California Target Book explained the cascading consequences: "Trump's endorsement of Steve Hilton likely frees up tens of millions of dollars for Democratic groups who would have otherwise had to spend heavily to elevate one of the two leading GOP gubernatorial candidates to avoid a Democratic lockout."
April 6, 2026
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-steve-bannon-trump-doj-dismiss-contempt
Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court agrees to help Trump DOJ move to dismiss Steve Bannon's contempt case
The Trump DOJ told the justices that dismissing the Trump ally’s criminal case is “in the interests of justice.”
Deadline: Legal Blog - Supreme Court agrees to help Trump DOJ move to dismiss Steve Bannon’s contempt case
— Lola Gayle (@lolagaylec.bsky.social) 2026-04-06T14:30:11.017Z
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-steve-bannon-trump-doj-dismiss-contempt
The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump Justice Department’s request to vacate an appeals court ruling against Steve Bannon, after the Department of Justice told the high court that it wants to dismiss the matter that was brought against the Donald Trump ally during the Biden administration.
The high court relief doesn’t officially dismiss the case, but it clears a path for that conclusion, as the DOJ has a pending motion in the trial court seeking dismissal. The next step will play out in the lower courts.
Bannon was convicted in 2022 for not complying with the House Jan. 6 select committee. He served a four-month sentence after the justices refused in the summer of 2024 to let him stay free while he appealed. He continued his appeal after serving his time, filing a petition with the justices in October after his appeals court loss. ....
As is typical in such cases, the Supreme Court didn’t issue an opinion to explain why it took the action it did on Monday’s order list, which is a routine document containing the court’s latest announcements on pending appeals. All the court said was: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of the pending motion to dismiss the indictment.”
The DOJ didn’t specify why it wants to abandon the case at this point, only that it “has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice.” In its brief to the justices, the DOJ cited cases stemming from the FIFA corruption scandal in which the government recently sought and received similar high court relief on criminal defendants’ behalf.
“The government’s decision to dismiss an ill-conceived prosecution even at this late stage is commendable,” Bannon’s lawyers wrote in his final brief to the justices in February.
The high court relief doesn’t officially dismiss the case, but it clears a path for that conclusion, as the DOJ has a pending motion in the trial court seeking dismissal. The next step will play out in the lower courts.
Bannon was convicted in 2022 for not complying with the House Jan. 6 select committee. He served a four-month sentence after the justices refused in the summer of 2024 to let him stay free while he appealed. He continued his appeal after serving his time, filing a petition with the justices in October after his appeals court loss. ....
As is typical in such cases, the Supreme Court didn’t issue an opinion to explain why it took the action it did on Monday’s order list, which is a routine document containing the court’s latest announcements on pending appeals. All the court said was: “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of the pending motion to dismiss the indictment.”
The DOJ didn’t specify why it wants to abandon the case at this point, only that it “has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice.” In its brief to the justices, the DOJ cited cases stemming from the FIFA corruption scandal in which the government recently sought and received similar high court relief on criminal defendants’ behalf.
“The government’s decision to dismiss an ill-conceived prosecution even at this late stage is commendable,” Bannon’s lawyers wrote in his final brief to the justices in February.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 180,103