Connect with us

News

Opinion: New Jan. 6 court filing shouldn’t scare voters. Trump would never do that again!

Published

on

Opinion: New Jan. 6 court filing shouldn’t scare voters. Trump would never do that again!


If you need proof that President Trump and his running mate will honor the result of November’s election, just listen to how peacefully they have accepted the result of the last presidential election.

play

Dear voters who don’t only watch Fox News:

Advertisement

We here at the Donald Trump presidential campaign realize some of you may have heard or read about a new court filing by federal DEEP STATE prosecutors in the Jan. 6 WITCH HUNT case that oh-so-wrongly accuses your favorite president of trying to overturn the 2020 election. 

We want to let you know, from the always-honest mouth of President Trump, that the allegations in this 165-page document are TOTALLY FALSE, and the so-called voluminous evidence presented is not something you should pay attention to or read. And even if it were true – which it DEFINITELY IS NOT – we here at the Trump campaign promise we would never do anything like that a second time around.

Donald Trump would never try to overturn another election – we promise

Does the filing from special counsel Jack Smith accuse President Trump of pursuing “multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted”? Yes, it does. But those are lies – the president used, at most, one criminal means – and the whole thing is ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

Since when do court cases move forward in a way that might be detrimental to the accused’s hopes of becoming president again and shutting down the court case? That seems un-American.

Advertisement

New Jan. 6 court filing reveals details about the plan to deny election results

Does the document detail specifics of this “alleged” plan to overthrow the government? I suppose if that’s what you call this, then sure:

“When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office. With private co-conspirators, the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results in seven states that he had lost—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (the ‘targeted states’). His efforts included lying to state officials in order to induce them to ignore true vote counts; manufacturing fraudulent electoral votes in the targeted states; attempting to enlist Vice President Michael R. Pence, in his role as President of the Senate, to obstruct Congress’s certification of the election by using the defendant’s fraudulent electoral votes; and when all else had failed, on January 6, 2021, directing an angry crowd of supporters to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification.”

But you know what those are? Those are a bunch of words strung together into what the liberals want you to believe are “sentences.” And are you really going to trust these so-called sentences to deliver factual information? Of course not.

Those could be migrant sentences Democrats let into this country to steal your way of life.

Advertisement

Did Trump supporters want to hang Mike Pence? Who can really say?

Some in the FAKE NEWS media have focused on one part of the document that details how on that Jan. 6, one of President Trump’s aides “rushed to the dining room” to tell the president that Pence had been taken to a secure location after rioters breached the U.S. Capitol. The aide apparently hoped the president would do something to ensure Pence’s safety.

The document says that President Trump responded: “So what?”

Opinion: Fat Bear Week debuted with a violent death. It’s time to give the bears guns.

First off … TOTAL LIES. But even if that detail about President Trump not caring whether the coward Mike Pence was safe happened to be true, you, the voter, needn’t worry about it.

The only person who should worry is current Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance. (Don’t worry, JD, President Trump would NEVER treat you that way, as long as you do exactly what he says. By the way, what is your noose size?)

Advertisement

Trump is saying the same things he said before the last election

Finally, this probably unconstitutional court filing claims President Trump told advisers before the Election Day in 2020 that he planned to “simply declare victory before all the ballots were counted and any winner was projected.”

The dirty, lying document goes on: “Publicly, the defendant began to plant the seeds for that false declaration. In the months leading up to the election, he refused to say whether he would accept the election results, insisted that he could lose the election only because of fraud, falsely claimed that mail-in ballots were inherently fraudulent, and asserted that only votes counted by election day were valid.”

Opinion: Vance and Walz had civil debate. Trump flung career-damning insults at soldiers.

Advertisement

That is complete nonsense, and the fact that as a reelection candidate President Trump has again been saying those exact things in the months leading up to this year’s election is a strange coincidence you should in no way think is odd or devious.

Just relax, already. You’re being hysterical.

It’s not like Trump and Vance continue to deny the 2020 election results

If you need proof that President Trump and his running mate will honor the result of November’s election, just listen to how peacefully they have accepted the result of the last presidential election.

When Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, was asked by Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz – LOSER! – at this week’s vice presidential debate whether Trump lost the 2020 election, Vance said: “Tim, I’m focused on the future.”

Advertisement

Asked on Thursday by comedian Jason Selvig if Trump won the 2020 election, Vance replied: “Yes.” And when asked again, Vance said: “Yep.”

President Trump himself, during his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, was asked by the moderator: “Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?”

“No, I don’t acknowledge that at all,” he said.

You see? Both men at the top of the GOP ticket have clearly and forcefully accepted the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, and the outcome they accept is that President Trump won.

Trust us, America, you have nothing to worry about as long as Trump wins

Faced with such unparalleled honesty and firm grounding in reality and common sense, how can anyone look at Lyin’ Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 court filing – with all its stupid evidence and long string of dumb witnesses willing to testify under oath – and think the Trump campaign would ever try to do something dishonest?

Advertisement

It makes no sense. And it makes even less sense if you don’t read the document, which we at the Trump campaign strongly encourage. Spend your time browsing our online Trump merchandise store. Maybe get yourself a watch or a hat or something.

Just please don’t read that document.

Make America Great Again!

Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on X, formerly Twitter, @RexHuppke and Facebook facebook.com/RexIsAJerk

Advertisement

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Nick Reiner will be charged with first degree murder in his parents’ killing

Published

on

Nick Reiner will be charged with first degree murder in his parents’ killing

Michele Singer Reiner, Rob Reiner and their son Nick in 2013.

Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Teen Vogue


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Teen Vogue

Nick Reiner, the 32-year-old son of filmmaker Rob Reiner and photographer Michele Singer Reiner, is being charged with two counts of first degree murder. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said at a press conference Tuesday that the charges include a “special circumstance” of multiple murders and a “special allegation” that Reiner used a dangerous and deadly weapon — a knife.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

“No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty,” Hochman added.

Advertisement

Hochman called Rob Reiner an “iconic force in our entertainment industry” and his wife Michele Singer Reiner an “equally iconic photographer and producer.” The police became aware of their deaths on Sunday after a call from the fire department. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the cause and time of the deaths aren’t available at this time as they await updates from the coroner’s office.

Alan Hamilton, deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, said that Nick Reiner was arrested in public on Sunday, in the Exposition Park area of Los Angeles, near the University of Southern California campus. In response to questions, McDonnell said he was unable to say whether or not Nick Reiner was under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest. Reiner had been open about his struggles with addiction in the past.

When asked whether there was evidence of mental illness in Nick Reiner’s background, Hochman said “any evidence, if there is any” would be presented in court. Hochman wouldn’t answer a question about whether Reiner admitted to the crimes, saying that is the type of evidence that would come out in court.

Hochman emphasized that “charges are not evidence” and that his office would be presenting evidence to jurors in a court of law. He asked people to rely on trusted sources and not hearsay about the case.

He said that, as in any case, his office would be taking “the thoughts and desires of the family into consideration.”

Advertisement

Prosecutors are filing charges Tuesday afternoon. Reiner is going through medical clearance – a normal process, according to officials – and will be brought to court for arraignment, where he will enter a plea. Reiner is currently being held without bail.

Continue Reading

Trending