Um… Trump May Still Be Hoarding Classified Documents at Mar-a-Lago?

The Federal Bureau of Investigations forgot to clear corners while scanning Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, apparently leaving several stones unturned.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has been questioning several witnesses to the Mar-a-Lago raid about areas that the FBI apparently didn’t check during its August 2022 investigation, including a locked closet and a “hidden room” connected to Trump’s bedroom, sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News.

A senior FBI official told the outlet that agents targeted its search areas “based on information gathered throughout the course of the investigation,” though some security experts described the lapse as “a bit astonishing.”

“You’re searching a former president’s house. You [should] get it right the first time,” Jordan Strauss, a former national security official in the Justice Department, told ABC News.

Investigators later learned that Trump had the closet’s lock changed while one of his attorneys scoured for the classified documents in a storage room that he was told housed them.

Trump faces 40 felony charges in the case: 32 charges for violating the Espionage Act by retaining at least 102 documents with classified documents, six charges for obstruction, and two for making false statements regarding his possession of the documents.

Two of his associates are also charged in the case—longtime aide Walt Nauta, who’s charged with six felonies, and Mar-a-Lago employee Carlos De Oliveira who faces four felonies. Both of them, along with Trump, attempted to destroy security footage after federal officials requested it, according to a superseding indictment released July 2023.

The trial is scheduled for May 20, in Fort Pierce, Florida.

It looks like Donald Trump’s body man, who was indicted alongside the former president for mishandling classified documents, might have something else in common with his boss: Walt Nauta has also been accused of sexual misconduct.

Trump hired Nauta in August 2021 to be part of his postpresidential team. Prior to that, Nauta had spent 20 years serving in the Navy. But just weeks before his job change, Nauta’s naval career was nearly ended by multiple allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct, The Daily Beast reported Thursday.

Three female service members accused Nauta of inappropriate conduct in April 2021, but his problematic behavior had been happening for years, the Beast said, citing two anonymous sources. Nauta was assigned to the White House food service in 2012, during the Obama administration. He worked his way up the ranks and was ultimately assigned to be Trump’s personal valet.

During that time, when he was also married, Nauta allegedly had multiple overlapping and emotionally abusive romantic relationships. His partners were lower-ranked service members, which violates the U.S. military’s strict ban on “fraternization,” or engaging in “unduly familiar” relationships with someone of a different rank. These relationships can be personal, professional, or romantic.

Nauta was also accused of revenge porn for allegedly taking and keeping compromising images of the women and then threatening to make those images public.

When a Navy investigation revealed the extent of Nauta’s behavior, he admitted to the relationships and was escorted off White House grounds that same day. It is unclear if he was officially charged or simply allowed to take his retirement a few months early. Trump’s job offer came just a few weeks later.

Colby Vokey, a military criminal defense attorney and retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, told the Beast that the Navy usually has to act fast with cases like Nauta’s. Vokey said Nauta’s case appeared unusual because of the Navy’s apparent delay in conducting a deeper investigation.

But, the Beast wrote, according to Vokey, “it wouldn’t be surprising if the Navy saw the Mar-a-Lago offer, coinciding as it did with Nauta’s retirement window, as an opportunity to avoid practical difficulties in investigating White House personnel and to avoid a potential public relations firestorm.”

It is unclear if Trump knew about the allegations against Nauta when he offered him a job, but it is unlikely Trump would be bothered by them. At least 26 women have accused Trump of sexual assault or misconduct, and just last week, he was ordered to pay $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll for defaming her in 2019 after she revealed he sexually abused her in the mid-1990s.

Nauta has been indicted alongside Trump for the former president’s hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump, Nauta, and a third resort employee named Carlos De Oliveira are accused of trying to destroy evidence, including attempting to delete security footage off a server.

Nauta allegedly moved boxes of documents out of a Mar-a-Lago storage room so Trump’s lawyer couldn’t find them and return them to the government. Nauta says he did not know what was in the boxes at the time.

Nikki Haley appears to be woefully misinformed about her chances at getting Taylor Swift’s endorsement.

“I’m not gonna lie, I don’t know what the obsession is, Taylor Swift is allowed to have a boyfriend, Taylor Swift is a good artist, I’ve taken my daughter to Taylor Swift concerts before,” Haley told CNN Thursday. “To have a conspiracy theory of all of this is bizarre. No one knows who she will endorse.”

Sure, technically anything is possible as we’re all hurtling on a rock through space, but the chances of Swift endorsing Haley are so infinitesimally small it’s laughable.

The historically apolitical pop superstar had effectively held a vow of silence on politics until 2018, when she endorsed Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, in the Senate race against Republican candidate Marsha Blackburn.

And in 2020, the “Cruel Summer” singer endorsed Joe Biden for president—the first time she ever tapped into presidential politics.

“The change we need most is to elect a president who recognizes that people of color deserve to feel safe and represented, that women deserve the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and that the LGBTQIA+ community deserves to be acknowledged and included,” Swift told V Magazine at the time.

That doesn’t exactly sound like Haley, who has in recent months come under fire for claiming that America was never a racist nation, who won’t rule out an abortion ban, and who has claimed that Florida’s anti-LGBTQ “Don’t Say Gay” law didn’t go “far enough.”

Right-wing conspiracy theorists have latched onto Swift as their latest obsession, believing that the musician and her two-time Super Bowl champion boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, are a part of a Pentagon psyop to help President Joe Biden get reelected to the White House.

“The NFL is totally RIGGED for the Kansas City Chiefs, Taylor Swift, Mr. Pfizer (Travis Kelce). All to spread DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA. Calling it now: KC wins, goes to Super Bowl, Swift comes out at the halftime show and ‘endorses’ Joe Biden with Kelce at midfield. It’s all been an op since day one,” posted pro-Trump Rumble broadcaster Mike Crispi on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

It’s an idea that defies all logic, especially as some of its most vocal proponents, who are known white supremacist and neo-Nazi affiliates like OANN host Jack Posobiec, seemingly reverse course on their racist ideologies in favor of targeting the blonde-haired, blue-eyed country music star and her football-playing boyfriend.

Nikki Haley is right about one thing: The conspiracy theories are bizarre. But so is her thinking she actually has a chance at getting Swifties to back her.

A Republican representative believes that Palestinian babies are not innocent civilians but “terrorists” who should be killed.

Florida Representative Brian Mast made the horrifying comment when confronted by Code Pink protesters outside his office on Wednesday.

In a video, Mast can be seen calmly telling the demonstrators, “It would be better if you kill all the terrorists and kill everyone who are supporters.”

When asked if he has seen the images of Palestinian babies killed in Israeli attacks, Mast says, “These are not innocent Palestinian civilians.”

“The babies?” the activists asks in astonishment.

Mast then says that the “half a million people starving to death” should have elected a pro-Israel government.

When one protester points out that much of Gaza’s infrastructure has been destroyed, Mast says, “And there’s more infrastructure that needs to be destroyed.”

“Did you not hear me? There’s more that needs to be destroyed,” he says again for emphasis.

More than 27,000 Palestinians have been killed since October in Israel’s constant bombardment of Gaza. The majority of the victims have been women and children.

Mast’s horrific comments—and the chilling way in which he delivered them—should come as no surprise. In November, just a few weeks after the war began, Mast compared Palestinian civilians to Nazis and implied that they are all guilty for Hamas’s atrocities.

“I would encourage the other side to not so lightly throw around the idea of ‘innocent Palestinian civilians,’ as is frequently said,” he said on the House floor.

“I don’t think we would so lightly throw around the term ‘innocent Nazi civilians’ during World War II.”

Republicans just earned their first intraparty “no” vote on their sham impeachment effort against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas: Colorado Representative Ken Buck.

“The people that I’m talking to on the outside, the constitutional experts, former members agree that this just isn’t an impeachable offense,” Buck told reporters Thursday outside the House chamber.

“It’s maladministration. He’s terrible,” the Republican representative added, referring to Mayorkas. “The border is a disaster, but that’s not impeachable.”

Buck’s announcement raises doubts as to whether the House will even be able to push forward an impeachment vote, as Republicans grapple with a razor-thin two-seat majority in the lower chamber. While the effort may still have a shot with the help of some Democrats in swing districts, a solid “no” vote from inside the party certainly doesn’t help.

In an interview with MSNBC, Buck argued that a policy disagreement isn’t a valid basis to oust the Cabinet member, specifying that Mayorkas’s decisions on the border don’t constitute a “high crime or misdemeanor.”

“This is a policy difference,” Buck said. “If we start going down this path of impeachment with a Cabinet official, we are opening a door, as Republicans, that we don’t want to open. The next president who is a Republican will face the same scrutiny from Democrats. It’s wrong, and we should not set this precedent.”

Buck had been undecided on the vote prior to speaking with Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green and committee staff, reported NBC News. House Republican leadership did not make an effort to speak with him, he told the outlet.

Republicans plan to bring the impeachment articles to the House floor next week. Should the effort prove successful, it will force a trial in the Senate.

The effort to impeach Mayorkas gained new traction on Sunday when the House Homeland Security Committee released two articles of impeachment, the first of which described the Biden administration’s border policies as a crime and the second accused Mayorkas of lying to Congress and obstructing an official investigation.

Tensions have been boiling over between the two parties since Texas defied a Supreme Court ruling that determined that state’s use of concertina wire along the Rio Grande section of the U.S.-Mexico border went beyond its authority. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to stall on a legitimate border security deal in a thankless attempt to bolster Donald Trump’s reelection campaign—a move that a growing number of conservative lawmakers appear to disagree with, including Senator Kevin Cramer and Representative Dan Crenshaw.

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday that 10 Republican state senators have disqualified themselves from the upcoming election, after staging a record-long walkout last year to block bills on abortion access, transgender health care, and gun restrictions.

The 10 senators staged a six-week boycott last year, the longest in Oregon’s history, stalling hundreds of bills and paralyzing the legislature. Oregon’s secretary of state determined in August that the senators had violated a voter-approved constitutional amendment disqualifying lawmakers from the ballot if they have more than 10 unexcused absences.

The boycotters sued Secretary LaVonne Griffin-Valade, arguing they should be allowed to run in November. But the state’s high court upheld Griffin-Valade’s decision on Thursday.

Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved the change to the state constitution in 2022, after Republicans had staged similar boycotts the three previous years. The amendment states that if a lawmaker has missed more than 10 sessions, that lawmaker is not allowed to run “for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.”

Democrats control the Oregon statehouse, but legislature rules require two-thirds of lawmakers to be present in order to pass legislation. The amendment’s goal is to prevent lawmakers from staging walkouts that gum up legislative works.

The 10 senators who walked out last year were primarily boycotting two measures: one that would have expanded access to abortion and gender-affirming care and another that would have cracked down on so-called ghost guns, or undetectable firearms. The legislative session resumed only after Republicans managed to extract concessions from Democrats on both these bills.

The boycotters argued in the state Supreme Court that they should be allowed to run for reelection in 2024 since their terms aren’t technically “completed” until 2025. They would then be ineligible in the 2028 election cycle.

But the justices pointed out that even if the amendment itself is ambiguous, the information provided ahead of the ballot initiative was not.

“Those other materials expressly and uniformly informed voters that the amendment would apply to a legislator’s immediate next terms of office, indicating that the voters so understood and intended that meaning,” the justices wrote in their ruling.

Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has plans to force a vote on another censure resolution against Representative Ilhan Omar on Thursday—except this time, Greene is attempting to punish the first Somali American legislator in Congress for words she never said.

Omar, who is also one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, has spent the better part of the week under fire by her colleagues across the aisle over a speech she delivered at the Minneapolis Hyatt Hotel on Saturday, celebrating an election in a region of Somalia. During the speech, she spoke in Somali about a dispute between Somalia and the breakaway republic Somaliland—but Republican interpretations of Omar’s language have been far from accurate.

Several Republicans have called for an ethics investigation, accusing Omar of being a “foreign agent,” while others, like wannabe House Speaker Tom Emmer, are demanding she “resign in disgrace,” condemning Omar for her “Somalia-first comments.”

According to the translation Republicans keep using, and the one cited by Greene’s resolution, Omar allegedly said that “the U.S. Government will only do what Somalians in the U.S. tell them to do,” and that she would “protect the interests of Somalia from inside the U.S. system.”

Greene and other Republicans also keep alleging that Omar said we are “Somalians first, Muslims second.”

But third-party translations of Omar’s speech, published in full by The Minnesota Reformer, reveal that Omar never actually said any of that. The Reformer commissioned two translations, and neither showed Omar saying, “Somalians first, Muslims second.”

“So when I heard that people who call themselves Somalis signed an agreement with Ethiopia, many people reached out to me and said I needed to talk to the U.S. government. They asked, what would the U.S. government do?” Omar said, according to the outlet.

“My answer was that the U.S. government will do what we tell the U.S. government to do. That is the confidence we need to have as Somalis. We live in this country. This is the country where we pay taxes. This is the country that has elected a woman from your community. For as long as I am in Congress, no one will take over the seas belonging to the nation of Somalia and the United States will not support others who seek to steal from us,” she continued.

“So feel comfortable, Somali Minnesotans, that the woman you sent to Congress is aware of this issue and feels the same way you do,” she added.

In an email to the local paper, Omar noted that the attacks were “disingenuous attempts to malign my character and question my loyalty to my home, America.”

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is openly plotting revenge against the Republicans who ousted him.

McCarthy was unceremoniously booted from the speakership in October when eight Republicans, led by Representative Matt Gaetz, joined all Democrats in voting to vacate the chair. McCarthy left Congress in December, shrinking his party’s already narrow majority in the chamber.

Now, Politico reported Thursday, citing anonymous sources, McCarthy ally Brian Walsh is working to recruit primary challengers to those eight turncoats. The group is known on Capitol Hill as the “Crazy Eight” or “Gaetz Eight” (because the “hateful eight” was already taken).

McCarthy is ready to mobilize his still-sizeable donor network to mount primary challenges—focusing on three representatives in particular. His allies believe that Representatives Nancy Mace, Bob Good, and Eli Crane are the most vulnerable right now and are looking to recruit other Republican candidates in their districts.

“These traitors chose to side with Nancy Pelosi, AOC and over 200 Democrats to undermine the institution, their fellow Republicans and a duly elected Speaker,” Walsh told Politico in a statement. “There must be consequences for that decision.”

Mace’s turning on McCarthy must be especially bitter, because she was a member of his inner circle before voting to oust him. McCarthy reportedly encouraged her former chief of staff to resign and then run for her seat.

McCarthy’s revenge plans may continue beyond this election cycle. One member of the Gaetz Eight told Politico anonymously they had heard from a potential primary challenger who turned down recruitment attempts from a McCarthy associate. So the former speaker may keep pushing in future elections.

Of course, the biggest target is still Gaetz, who introduced the motion to vacate the speaker. Recently leaked private messages from Gaetz reveal the Florida Republican wanted to oust McCarthy because of the House Ethics Committee’s renewed probe into Gaetz’s alleged payments to a minor for sex.

McCarthy has shown before that he has a vindictive streak. In November, McCarthy allegedly elbowed Representative Tim Burchett, another Gaetz Eight member, in the halls of Congress.

Burchett called McCarthy a “jerk” and accused him of having “no guts.”

“What kind of chicken move is that?” he demanded. “You’re pathetic, man, you are so pathetic.”

Donald Trump’s courtroom dramas are beginning to overwhelm his political ambitions.

The GOP front-runner’s reelection campaign spent millions more than it took in over the course of 2023, with the vast majority of expenditures going to Trump’s legal fees, reported Politico.

According to the outlet’s analysis of Trump’s campaign finance filings, made public Wednesday, the real estate mogul’s “web of committees”—which include his campaign, Save America, Make America Great Again PAC, his joint fundraising committee, and MAGA Inc.—tossed money back and forth between them, spending roughly $210 million during the last year. That’s $10 million more than it raised.

Perhaps even more writing on the wall for Trump: The former president used approximately $50 million in donations to cover his legal fees over the course of 2023.

Save America, Trump’s leadership PAC, spent more than $25 million on consulting and legal fees in the second half of the year alone—paying dues to more than 47 law firms and attorneys. That’s on top of some $21 million that the PAC spent on the former president’s mounting legal bill in the first half of the 2023. And the Make America Great Again PAC, which pulls most of its funding from Save America, put an additional $4 million toward Trump’s tab in the latter half of 2023, as well.

That reportedly left just $5 million in the tank for his leadership PACs, according to Politico.

Meanwhile, Republicans will need to be tightening their belts, as well, with recent filings suggesting that the conservative party wasn’t quite so fiscally minded last year. An end-of-year Federal Election Commission filing revealed that the Republican National Committee had just $8 million on hand, per The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell.

Trump’s campaign is still in the green, however, thanks to a surplus in fundraising from previous years. But the high expenditures signal bad omens ahead for Trump as he grapples with not just the general election but also 91 felony charges across four separate, upcoming trials.

A Florida school district has drawn over the illustrations in multiple award-winning children’s books in its libraries after the chair of the local Moms for Liberty chapter complained that some of the characters were shown naked. One of the offending characters? A goblin who showed his backside.

Jennifer Pippin submitted multiple formal challenges in November and December to the Indian River County school district, Popular Information reported Thursday. One of the books she took issue with was the book Unicorns Are the Worst, which won a Florida state children’s literature award, because the main character (a goblin) is shown with its butt facing the audience. Here is the offending butt in question:

She challenged the book No, David! for the same reason (although the offending posterior in that book belongs to a young boy). Pippin also challenged In the Night Kitchen, a Caldecott Honor–winning book by Maurice Sendak. The protagonist, a young boy named Mickey, is sometimes drawn naked.

And she submitted yet another complaint about Draw Me a Star, by Eric Carle, the author of The Very Hungry Caterpillar. In classic Carle style, though, very few features are actually distinguishable on the adults Pippin complained about.

After meeting with Pippin, school district officials suggested drawing clothes over the illustrations to hide their nudity. Pippin agreed that this would resolve the issue.

Pippin told Popular Information that she submitted challenges to these books because she felt that the depictions of nudity were “harmful to minors” under two Florida state laws. The first law relates to obscenity and prohibits showing minors any “nudity or sexual conduct.” The second law allows state residents to demand libraries remove any book that “depicts or describes sexual conduct.”

But the thing is, both of these laws specifically apply to sexual conduct, not just straight nudity. It says more about Pippin that she viewed these illustrations, which are intended to make children laugh, as inherently sexual.

David Flynt, whose children attend Indian River County schools, noted as much when he criticized Pippin’s challenges to the book. In an interview with Popular Information, Flynt asked why Moms for Liberty was “sexualizing” a drawing “of a goblin’s bare backside.”

The illustration “was not [included] to cause arousal, and was of a fictional character,” Flynt said.

He also pointed to Pippin’s challenge to the book Sofia Valdez, Future Prez.  Pippin claimed that the main character’s grandfather was shown wearing a pro-LGBTQ pin. While the illustration could be considered to include a pink triangle, an LGBTQ pride symbol, the drawing is so small that it could really be anything.

Pippin indicated in her challenge to Sofia Valdez that she has not actually read the book.

Florida has banned multiple books in the past year, for covering topics including race, gender, and sexuality. Pippin’s challenges are not the first time a school district has had to remove a book long considered innocuous. Recently, another school district removed editions of the dictionary from its library shelves because the reference text includes definitions of sexual conduct.