Democrats’ Dystopian Plan to Get Young People to Vote for Biden

Democratic donors are test-running a series of party-style campaign events aimed at getting young voters to the polls—a nice idea, but some of their tactics seem downright dystopian.

Over the past few months, The Voter Project has been hosting parties in Pennsylvania, fine-tuning strategies under the banner Stand Up Strong ’24, according to The Washington Post.

“Turning people out to cultural events is not a hard thing to do. The key thing is to make it fun and keep out the doom and gloom,” Kevin Mack, the group’s lead strategist told the Post.

Stand Up Strong ’24 recently held an event in Philadelphia that had all the usual fixings of a community event, including beer, free giveaways, and music.

But there was one more thing: a raffle giving away one month’s rent to lucky attendees. A total of $8,000 was distributed, according to the Post.

Democrats are so desperate to reunite with young voters that they’ve resorted to paying them. Somehow, throwing money at the problem seems easier than making substantial policy changes.

Unfortunately for Biden, his glacial work to erase crippling student loans for millions of people hasn’t proven to be enough to keep young voters, especially not in the face of his disastrous Israel policy, which has actively backed the country’s catastrophic military campaign in Gaza.

For the Biden campaign, youth voter turnout may be the key to keeping the White House in November. In 2020, an astounding young voter turnout, higher than in any presidential election in nearly 50 years, lifted Biden to victory. Without their support, 2024 could look a lot like 2016—with even more dangerous results.

It’s undeniable that community events are essential tools in building public power and engaging young voters. Just look at the massive pro-Palestinian rallies across the country! If only Biden could think of some way to tap into that … oh well.

Fox News is attempting to downplay conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s astronomical $4 million in lavish vacations and gifts by fixating on gifts received by liberal justices—specifically, Beyoncé tickets given to Ketanji Brown Jackson by the superstar herself, which is just an unequivocally cool fact.

Jackson’s Beyoncé tickets, which the Supreme Court justice reported totaled $3,700, have consumed a substantial amount of Fox’s attention. According to an analysis by Mediaite, Fox spent multiple segments discussing Jackson’s tickets in detail while saying next to nothing about the real scandal of Thomas’s mind-boggling disclosure report. Fix the Court tallied all Supreme Court justice disclosures over the last 20 years, finding they collectively received more than $6.5 million in gifts—with a extreme majority of that total attributed solely to Thomas.

When Fox News does mention Thomas’s amended financial disclosure forms (which only come after bombshell reports expose that he failed to disclose them), it’s paired with mention of Jackson’s tickets, seemingly in an attempt to conflate being swayed by conservative billionaire interests with being swayed by the melodious rhythm of Queen Bey’s splashy bops.

According to Mediaite, in the week since Fix the Court’s findings, Fox News mentioned Clarence Thomas’s amended financial disclosures three times, each time omitting the astronomical quantity of his gifts. Every time Fox News mentioned Thomas, it brought up Jackson’s Beyoncé tickets and noted the price.

“Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is acknowledging previously unreported trips that were paid for by a conservative billionaire,” said Fox News anchor John Roberts, during a June 6 episode of America Reports. “Thomas has amended last year’s financial disclosure form to include the trips that were back in 2019. The vacations to Bali and California were not originally included in his 2019 disclosure form. By the way, last year, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the justice, got four tickets from Beyoncé for a concert worth $3,700.”

The analysis from Mediaite further notes that Fox News carried its lopsided framing to its website, publishing articles that vaguely report on Thomas’s amended disclosures while providing itemized detailing of gifts received by Jackson. Fox describes the cost of the Beyoncé tickets as “eye-popping” and includes mention of a floral arrangement gifted by Oprah Winfrey to celebrate Jackson becoming the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Fix the Court responded to Fox’s focus on Jackson’s meager gifts while underplaying Thomas’s extravagant boon, posting on X (formerly Twitter), “$4,000 in gifts is the same as $4 million in gifts, right?”

“Here, a decision was made at Fox News at least five times—three on-air television reports plus the two articles on the network’s website cited above—to leave out the seven-figure total of the gifts to Thomas, leave out the broader controversy about Thomas’ gifts from Crow, repeatedly mention the four-figure cost of the concert tickets given to Jackson, and emphasize the celebrity aspect of the story,” Mediaite’s Sarah Rumpf notes.

Supreme Court financial disclosures are intended to prevent conflicts of interest, an issue that has come up frequently with Thomas. Fox’s fixation on Jackson’s Beyoncé tickets moves away from the purpose of financial disclosures toward making a scandal of the fact that Beyoncé did an extremely cool thing, and that tickets to one of her legendary concerts apparently cost just $925 apiece.

Judge Aileen Cannon is definitely lending Donald Trump a helping hand in his classified documents case—at least, that’s according to the former president’s legal team.

Cannon on Tuesday* granted a request by Trump’s team to delay the trial until July 8, allowing the defense more time to find expert witnesses to bolster their case. But four words included near the bottom of the motion revealed exactly what legal experts have been fearing.

“We respectfully submit that no prejudice would result to the Special Counsel’s Office from granting the requested adjournment,” the team wrote in the Monday night filing, adding that “President Trump is disclosing to the Office tonight the topics of expert testimony that he will seek to present at trial should there be one.”

Cannon has added so many delays to the criminal trial that it has seemingly no start date in sight. Legal experts have warned that the Trump-appointed judge’s actions and apparent aversion to expedite the federal obstruction case could delay the trial until after November.

It could even be Cannon’s way of not-so-surreptitiously dismissing the trial altogether—and now, Trump has spelled it out.

In May, Cannon ordered a stay on the GOP presidential nominee’s legal requirement to give the government advance notice of which classified materials will be discussed—but offered no expiration date for the theoretically temporary reprieve. She also slapped down a gag order request for Trump on the basis that his defense did not have enough time to mull over its details.

Cannon has even scheduled an “unusual” hearing on June 21, making time for amicus briefs from non-parties to make oral arguments on whether special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment to the case is constitutional.

Former Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb has accused Cannon of “incompetence,” insisting that the case could have “easily” gone to trial before Election Day with the amount of evidence available.

“Only her incompetence and perceived bias has prevented that,” Cobb told CNN last month.

Trump faces 42 felony charges in the case related to willful retention of national security information, corruptly concealing documents, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. But the judge actually overseeing the former president’s classified documents case seems to have no motivation to move forward with the trial.

*This story has been updated with Cannon’s response.

Judge Aileen Cannon has once again helped Donald Trump in his classified documents trial, this time by removing an entire paragraph from the indictment.

The paragraph in question alleged that Trump showed a classified map of a foreign country related to a military operation to a representative of his political action committee, who did not have security clearance. Trump’s defense team said the paragraph was prejudicial and included information that was not essential to the underlying charges.

Trump’s team had requested that multiple charges in the indictment be dismissed, but Cannon denied that request. However, while delivering that news, she chided special counsel Jack Smith’s team for including language in the charging documents that she called “legally unnecessary to serve the function of an indictment” and that she said created “arguable confusion” in the allegations.

Trump’s defense team has made numerous pretrial requests and motions, which Cannon’s handling of the case has allowed to pile up. She has postponed the case indefinitely to examine each motion, even if they seem outrageous or frivolous. For example, she has scheduled a hearing for later this month to determine whether Smith’s appointment and funding by the Justice Department was even legal.

Cannon has also agreed to hear Trump’s arguments that the FBI plotted to assassinate him—a completely made-up conspiracy theory. Two weeks ago, she blocked a gag order request from special counsel Jack Smith because it was “wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy.” And one of Trump’s former lawyers, Ty Cobb, thinks that Cannon is doing a terrible job with the case.

The frequently delayed case has not reflected well on Cannon, a former federal prosecutor and University of Michigan law school graduate. One hearing with a Trump co-defendant devolved into a shouting match, and Cannon seems to misunderstand basic legal proceedings and principles in court, forcing legal counsel to explain them to her as the trial proceeds.

All of this has given fodder to allegations that she is deliberately slowing down the case against the convicted felon and Republican presidential nominee, or seeking to ultimately dismiss the case entirely. But, it all could be used by Smith in a motion to try and have her removed from the case. Regardless of whether Cannon’s odd handling of Trump’s case is due to inexperience or a deliberate attempt to help Trump, he certainly seems to appreciate it.

The Streisand effect is in full force as Donald Trump aggressively attempts to bat away an ad released by Biden’s campaign that highlights alleged remarks Trump made at a cemetery for fallen soldiers, where he reportedly referred to the cemetery as being full of “suckers” and “losers.”

The ad references numerous comments made by Trump over the years reportedly expressing disdain toward military veterans and fallen soldiers, blending public comments made by Trump with firsthand reports of statements he made in 2018, according to a now infamous story, with multiple sources who spoke with The Atlantic in 2020. While Trump has taken umbrage with the ad for what he purports to be “misinformation,” sources who spoke with The Daily Beast noted it has particularly provoked Trump because it pairs his own “losers” comment with his insecurities about himself being a loser.

“The biggest insult to him to get under his skin is that he lost in 2020, he lost his court case and he’s convicted now,” a Trump world strategist told The Daily Beast. “You can call him fat, call him an insurrectionist, call him a racist [but] that’s just not gonna stick.”

“I think his deepest fear, or the deepest psychology with Donald Trump is that he [didn’t win] the 2020 election [when] he’s won everything in life,” the Republican strategist added. “That’s the pressure. He’s married hot women, he built famous buildings, he had a highly rated, successful TV show. And he became president, right?”

During a baking hot campaign rally in Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump griped about the ad and those who recommended he not mention it. “I gotta mention it,” Trump told the crowd. “It just never goes away.” Trump continued his tirade on Truth Social, where in numerous posts he called for Biden to “take down the Fake Ad,” which he described as “MADE UP DISINFORMATION by Radical Left Democrats, and Trump Haters.”

“Obviously, I never said that dead Soldiers are ‘losers and suckers.’ Who would say such a thing? It was MADE UP DISINFORMATION by Radical Left Democrats, and Trump Haters, working with a failing Magazine, just like Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, FISA Fraud, 51 Intel Agents, and so much more,” Trump posted on Monday.

“They even made these horrific words into an advertisement which shows how desperate they are,” Trump wrote in another post. “No President, especially ‘dumb as a rock’ Joe Biden, has done more for our Military than DONALD J. TRUMP. The Military hates Crooked Joe, and all of the failure he represents. Take down the Fake Ad, Joe, and stop the unprecedented Weaponization of ‘Justice’ against your Political Opponent. You are destroying our Country!”

Trump infamously draft-dodged by making up bone spurs, denigrated John McCain’s time as a prisoner of war by saying, “I like people who weren’t captured,” and, after canceling on a 2018 visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France, asked, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers”—comments Trump denies making but which were confirmed by his then–White House chief of staff, John Kelly.

A secret tape has exposed what Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, really thinks behind closed doors—and the truth isn’t pretty. In the span of just a few minutes, Alito promised revenge on the media, flung around terms like “femnazis,” lauded her German heritage, and went off about Pride flags. It was a mess.

Alito has been in and out of the news in the last month, after her high-ranking husband blamed her for hanging an upside-down American flag outside of their home, a symbol favored by the “Stop the Steal” movement following the 2020 presidential election. She supposedly hung the flag in response to a neighbor’s “F— Trump” sign, which sparked the rather unneighborly spat. Alito also engaged in some light menacing as part of the feud, prompting the neighbor to call the cops on the Alitos. Still, Justice Alito has refused calls to recuse himself from cases relating to the January 6 insurrection.

Journalist Lauren Windsor recorded Martha-Ann’s and her husband’s comments during the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner earlier this month. A copy of the tape was published on Monday by Rolling Stone.

Windsor first approached Martha-Ann, posing as a Christian conservative, to express her sympathy over “everything that you’re going through,” referring to the highly publicized flag hanging.

“It’s OK because if they come back to me, I’ll get them,” Alito said cheerfully. “I’m gonna be liberated and I’m gonna get them.”

“What do you mean by ‘they?’” Windsor asked.

“There is a five-year defamation statute of limitations,” Alito said, letting out a laugh.

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘they’, like by ‘get them’?” Windsor pressed.

“The media!” Alito said, going on to complain about her coverage in The Washington Post style section from nearly two decades ago.

It appears Alito doesn’t forget about the journalists who’ve gotten on her bad side. In 2016, Alito was reportedly enthusiastic about Trump’s promise to expand U.S. libel laws to make it significantly easier to sue news outlets for their coverage, one GOP operative told Rolling Stone.

While maintaining her cheerful tone, Alito also took aim at any woman who suggested her husband should’ve prevented her from hanging an “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a symbol revived by a Christian nationalist sect and favored by January 6 insurrectionists, at their vacation home.

“The other thing the femnazis believe, that he should control me,” Alito said about her husband. “So, they’ll go to hell. He never controls me.”

When Windsor asked what someone who has the same flag should do, Alito responded simply, “Don’t get angry, get even.”

There was one group that Alito seemed to admire, and it’s not exactly one that people are often openly praising. “Look at me, look at me. I’m German, from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me. I’m gonna give it back to you. And there will be a way, it doesn’t have to be now, but there will be a way they will know. Don’t worry about it,” she said.

When Windsor tried to ask Alito about the political divide in the United States and her thoughts on the “radical Left,” about which her supposedly nonpolitical husband had plenty to say, Alito cut her off to complain about Pride flags.

“You know what I want? I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month,” she said.

“And he’s like, ‘Oh please, don’t put up a flag.’ I said, ‘I won’t do it because I’m deferring to you. But when you are free of this nonsense I’m putting it up, and I’m gonna send them a message every day. Maybe every week I’ll be changing the flags. They’ll be all kinds,’” she said, fantasizing about the day when she could finally antagonize her neighbors who support the LGBTQ+ community.

Alito even explained she had invented a flag that says, “Vergogna,” which means “shame” in Italian. “Shame, shame, shame on you,” Alito added darkly.

One can scarcely believe that her husband ruled in favor of allowing businesses to discriminate against people who identify as LGBTQ+.

The first presidential debate is set to take place June 27 at CNN’s studios in Atlanta. The event was always going to occur, but that didn’t stop Donald Trump from spending weeks goading his opponent into accepting the details. Now it seems that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee may be trying to weasel his way out of the situation.

Fox News host Sean Hannity floated the idea Monday night, wondering aloud if Trump should “pass on the debate.”

“I think we’ll see the return of ‘Jacked-Up Joe,’” Hannity began, speculating about Biden’s abilities. “Whatever Joe drank, ate, took before the State of the Union—maybe it was just Red Bull and caffeine pills. I don’t know. Whatever it was, that was not the normal Joe. We never saw it before, and we haven’t seen it since. But we will see it for the debate.”

“Now, there are some even saying, Mark, that Donald Trump might be wise to just pass on the first debate, wait until he’s nominated, then debate him,” Hannity said, speaking to Harris Poll chairman Mark Penn. “What would you say to that?”

“I’d say he accepted it. He accepted it in the lion’s den. If I were Donald Trump, I would have done some better negotiating here, but I don’t think he can back out now without really looking cowardly,” Penn replied.

Hannity then took it a step further, suggesting that Trump would be better off during the debate if moderators muted his mic.

“Joe might have done Donald Trump a favor, and I say this affectionately, by insisting that when it’s not his turn to speak that they mute his microphone, ’cause I think that was a mistake in the first debate in 2020,” Hannity said, recalling Trump’s terrible performance the first time the pair squared off in the last election.

Hannity has held a close relationship with Trump for years. The two reportedly exchanged upward of 80 text messages between the 2020 election and Biden’s 2021 inauguration, with Hannity acting as a pseudo-adviser to the former president. Trump, however, has stayed surprisingly mum on the debate, even with the reality of the event just two weeks off.

“I think it’s important for us as teachers to create a space so that our students can dare to reimagine new futures, and they can dare connect and they can dare to dissent,” Texas history teacher Daniel Santos said as he accepted the Toni Morrison Award for Courage at The New Republic’s Right to Read celebration in Miami Saturday night. Santos, executive vice president of the Houston Federation of Teachers and one of five recipients of the award, told the story of a graduating former student from Guatemala who returned to tell him how much a novel he’d assigned about Japanese internment had stayed with him. “He connected with that book, and to this day, he says he continues to read that book because it was valuable and it was important,” he said.

Santos criticized policymakers in his home state, who have enacted some of the country’s most restrictive book banning legislation. So did fellow award-winner Allison Grubbs, Broward County Library director. Over 40 percent of book bans have occurred in Florida, prompting Grubbs to create book sanctuaries in all 36 branches of the Broward County Library system. Grubbs pledged that her “commitment to the freedom to read will remain unwavering,” even in the face of the harassment and threats she’s faced by right-wingers. “When we lose the unchallenged right to read, think, speak freely, we have lost not only our social liberty, but our humanity,” Grubbs said. “The history of totalitarianism in every age and culture has demonstrated that censorship of citizens and their press is a preliminary mechanism by which the descent begins.”

Two award recipients, Texas booksellers Valerie Koehler and Charley Rejsek, are taking on that mechanism directly. They are lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of House Bill 900, the Texas law requiring booksellers to rate books being sold to schools for their “sexual content.” The case, currently in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals after the state unsuccessfully appealed the ruling blocking the law’s enforcement, reminded Rejsek of a line from Fahrenheit 451, the once-banned Ray Bradbury novel from which her store draws its name. “‘Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick when it came to censorship.’ And I feel like we’re in that moment right now,” she said.

Four-time Newbery Award–winner and MacArthur grant recipient Jacqueline Woodson, who sat on a panel during the Right to Read celebration before accepting her award, drew from another celebrated American writer. “You think your pain is unprecedented in the history of the world, and then you read,” she said, paraphrasing James Baldwin. Woodson’s memoir of the Civil Rights Movement, Brown Girl Dreaming, which won the National Book Award and Newbery Honor award, was challenged in Florida and Texas during the 2021 “critical race theory” panic.

Woodson recalled reading Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, one of the country’s most banned books, as a fifth grader, reflecting on how it informed her own work. “We have seen mirrors of ourselves in literature,” she said. “We have seen windows into worlds that we would never have experienced or understood, or grown to have empathy for. We have seen the other and come to love the other, and we want the other to be OK because sometimes the other is us.”

Now that Donald Trump is a convicted felon, he is not only technically barred from traveling to 38 countries, but his businesses might start to feel the effects too, including his golf courses in New Jersey.

The State of New Jersey is reviewing whether the Republican presidential nominee’s felony convictions will affect the liquor licenses for his three golf courses in the state, according to the state attorney general’s office.

In New Jersey, anyone convicted of a crime “involving moral turpitude” can’t be issued a liquor license. These crimes are ones that include “dishonesty, fraud or depravity” that are punishable by more than one year in prison, according to a state handbook. Other states have similar laws, but Trump has workarounds. This is the case in California, where Trump already transferred the liquor license to Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles to his son, Donald Jr., in 2017.

Trump co-owns a hotel in Las Vegas, but the laws in the Sin City’s Clark County are friendlier to felons, where liquor license applicants only have to be “of good moral character” and there is no ban regarding felony convictions. Liquor authorities in New York, Virginia, Illinois, and North Carolina told Forbes magazine that Trump doesn’t hold any liquor licenses in their states, although the publication found financial disclosure forms indicating otherwise. Florida has moral character laws for its liquor licenses too, but Trump can submit an affidavit claiming he knows right from wrong, and can provide character references or evidence of good citizenship.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Trump seem to have patched up their differences, meaning that he probably doesn’t have to worry about a liquor license or jumping through hoops to be able to vote in the state. But he should have no trouble getting an exception from the man he once called “Meatball Ron” and “Pudding Fingers,” right?

Newly released footage from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot depicts tense scenes as then–Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scrambled for a military response to force out the Trump-driven mob that had taken over the Capitol that day.

“You’re going to ask me—in the middle of the thing when they’ve already breached the inaugural stuff—‘Should we call … the National Guard?’” Pelosi asked Terri McCullough, her chief of staff, as they rode in an SUV while being evacuated from the Capitol to Fort McNair. “Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?”

The footage was filmed by Pelosi’s daughter, documentarian Alexandra Pelosi, and was recently provided to Republican congressional investigators from HBO before landing in the hands of Politico and MSNBC.

In another clip, Schumer is seen demanding answers about directing Donald Trump to make a statement telling his supporters to leave. Schumer fumes that the city of Washington, D.C., had requested the National Guard but it was denied by the Department of Defense. “I’d like to know a good fucking reason why it’s been denied,” Schumer growls into a flip phone. “We need them fast. We’ve all had to—I’ve never seen anything like this. We’re like a third-world country here. We had to run and evacuate the Capitol.”

“They have not denied it,” Schumer said to Pelosi after getting off the phone. “I spoke to the secretary of the Army. He’s given the full OK to get the National Guard, he says it was not denied. I’m gunna call up the effin’ secretary of DoD.”

The clips shed new light as to why the National Guard failed to mobilize for hours after a pro-Trump mob breached the building and forced members of Congress to evacuate. Alongside existing evidence, it appears Trump colluded with the Department of Defense to drag their feet and let the deadly insurrection play out.

Trump has long falsely claimed that he signed an order for 10,000 National Guard troops to mobilize to D.C. prior to the Capitol riot. Trump and fellow conservatives have also falsely claimed that Pelosi was responsible for preventing their deployment. These claims were previously debunked by noting Trump failed to issue any formal request. As The Washington Post notes, Trump had informally suggested bringing in thousands of National Guard troops to protect his supporters from leftist counterprotests—not as part of a defense of the Capitol.

On January 7, 2021, the Department of Defense released a statement claiming, “Once the reality of the assault on the U.S. Capitol became apparent, National Guard troops responded appropriately and with alacrity.” At the same time, Trump claimed he “immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.” The National Guard didn’t mobilize to the Capitol until 5:40 p.m.—nearly five hours after the pro-Trump mob first breached the exterior barricades and began beating cops before breaching the Capitol at around 2 p.m.