Category: Bullying

Donald Trump’s rhetorical style is straight out of middle school. He’s like an eighth-grade girl.

Trump Threatens ABC News Over Boeing 747 Coverage Amid Ongoing Media Lawsuits

Donald Trump has threatened ABC News following its coverage of a $400 million Boeing 747 gifted to the Defense Department by Qatar’s royal family. In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed the network’s reporting has inaccurately suggested that the plane was intended as a personal gift to him. He warned ABC, labeling its journalists “SleazeBags” and demanding accountability for what he describes as misleading narratives.

Trump’s tirade comes after ABC News was reported to have settled a lawsuit with him for $15 million concerning past defamatory statements, emphasizing the controversial relationship he maintains with media outlets. He claimed, “Why doesn’t Chairman Bob Iger do something about ABC Fake News,” highlighting his ongoing battle against perceived criticism and unfavorable coverage.

During a White House press conference, when ABC’s Rachel Scott questioned Trump about the luxury plane being viewed as a personal gift, he reacted defensively, indicating embarrassment at the question rather than addressing the substance of the claim. His response avoided clarifying whether the lavish aircraft truly had any connection to him personally, leaving the implications of the transaction unclear.

Despite the controversy, Trump asserted that the plane donation was intended to benefit the United States military rather than himself, claiming it would save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. However, he failed to provide specific examples of media reports that purportedly misrepresented the intent of the gift.

In parallel, Trump is reportedly pursuing a settlement with CBS News regarding a supposedly edited interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris, illustrating a wider pattern of aggressive legal tactics against media organizations. These actions raise serious ethical concerns about Trump’s approach to handling dissenting opinions and journalistic scrutiny.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-threatens-abc-over-coverage-of-qatar-jet-im-warning-these-sleazebags/)

Trump’s Rhetoric Fuels Threats and Violence Against Critics Including Comey

Former FBI Director James Comey was recently interviewed by the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., following baseless accusations from Donald Trump. The interview occurred after Comey shared a social media post that Trump has claimed contains veiled threats toward his life, specifically the message “8647” which Trump interprets as a call to “86,” or eliminate, him.

Comey, who voluntarily participated in the interview and is not facing any charges, clarified that his post was simply an image of seashells he had found on a beach, and he did not intend to convey any violent message. Indeed, he stated on Instagram that he opposes violence of any kind and quickly took down the post after realizing that some might misconstrue those numbers as a threat.

In an interview with Fox News, Trump asserted that Comey’s message was clear and suggested that even a child would understand its implication, calling it an “assassination” reference. Trump’s constant need to frame himself as a victim reflects a broader pattern where he uses incendiary rhetoric to manipulate his base, often diverting attention from his own administration’s history of threatening public officials, including judges.

Threats against Trump have increased during his 2024 campaign, with an assassination attempt nearly resulting in a serious injury when a bullet grazed him in Pennsylvania. However, it is crucial to recognize that the atmosphere of assault and violence does not originate from the actions of those who criticize him, but rather from Trump’s persistent incitement of hostility against his perceived enemies.

Amid this turmoil, notable figures, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, have called for consequences for Comey, characterizing his actions as dangerous. This reaction highlights the paradox of a political environment where violent consequences are discussed freely while one person can claim to be a target simply by being critiqued. It is essential to maintain vigilant oversight of those in power, especially individuals like Trump and his allies, who have routinely dismissed judicial authority and encouraged confrontation over cooperation.

Trump’s False Narrative on Immigration: Supreme Court Ruling Exposes Fear-Mongering Tactics

President Donald Trump recently condemned a Supreme Court ruling that temporarily halted expedited deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members, characterizing it as a “bad and dangerous day for America.” His remarks reflect a dangerous and false narrative about immigrants, where he misrepresents the situation by claiming that this decision will allow criminals to flood into the country, a statement devoid of factual basis.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump expressed outrage that individuals he labeled as “the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane” would not be easily subjected to immediate deportation. This rhetoric exemplifies the disingenuous fear-mongering often employed by Trump and his allies, aiming to bolster their anti-immigrant agenda.

The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision criticized the Trump administration for inadequate notice regarding deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, signaling the judiciary’s rejection of Trump’s heavy-handed tactics. This ruling did not assess whether the law’s application is valid outside of wartime, instead prioritizing the respectful and fair treatment of legal processes, something the Trump administration has consistently flouted.

Trump specifically thanked Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas for attempting to support his administration’s stance, revealing the partisan nature of the debate. This situation highlights a broader trend of the Trump administration attacking judicial independence and contributing to political polarization by framing checks on his power as assaults on the nation.

Ultimately, Trump’s rhetoric reinforces a dangerous perception that migrants are inherently criminals, further cementing divisive narratives in American discourse. This strategy aligns with his administration’s overall tendency to undermine legal norms while appealing to a base that thrives on fear and misinformation.

IRS Eyes Tax Status Revocation for Harvard Amid Trump Threats

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is preparing to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status in a retaliatory move as the Trump administration intensifies pressure on the institution for resisting its demands. Sources indicate that a final decision on this unprecedented action is imminent, following the administration’s blockade of over $2 billion in federal funding aimed at Harvard.

President Donald Trump has explicitly threatened to punish Harvard through social media, stating that the university should lose its tax exemption if it continues to promote what he describes as harmful political ideologies. In a recent post on Truth Social, he characterized Harvard as failing to act in the public interest, an accusation leveled as part of a broader, authoritarian campaign against institutions that challenge his administration’s agenda.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has suggested that the IRS investigation into Harvard is warranted, indicating that the agency should also scrutinize other elite universities that have large endowments. Her comments echo the administration’s larger strategy of threatening academic institutions with funding cuts unless they align with its narrow definitions of political compliance, revealing a clear disregard for the principles of academic freedom.

The process for revoking tax-exempt status involves an extensive audit and a formal notification to the organization, but Trump’s administration is bypassing traditional procedures by directly threatening prestigious institutions. This approach marks a significant departure from IRS norms, where such actions are usually determined by career staff rather than political appointees. Observers note this trend reflects a dangerous precedent that jeopardizes the basic tenets of higher education.

With Harvard’s unwavering stance against the administration’s demands, the threat of rescinding its tax exemption is a clear move to silence dissent among academic institutions. This tactic not only undermines the principles of free inquiry and expression central to higher education but also reveals Trump’s ongoing efforts to weaponize federal power against those who oppose his authoritarian ideals.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/politics/irs-harvard-tax-exempt-status/index.html)

Trump’s Appointment of Todd Blanche Undermines Library of Congress and Democratic Norms

In a surprising move, Donald Trump has appointed Todd Blanche as the acting Librarian of Congress, following the abrupt firing of Dr. Carla Hayden. This decision underscores a troubling trend within the Trump administration, reflecting a pattern of undermining longstanding democratic institutions in pursuit of power.

Dr. Hayden, a respected figure in library sciences known for her commitment to inclusivity and public accessibility, was unceremoniously dismissed despite her bipartisan recognition. Critics, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have expressed grave concerns about Trump’s motivations, suggesting that this action is part of a broader strategy to consolidate power by appointing loyalists to key cultural roles.

The appointment of Blanche, who lacks significant experience in library sciences, raises serious implications for the stewardship of America’s cultural heritage. Such choices signal a disregard for expertise and a prioritization of political allegiance over qualifications. This shift by Trump not only threatens the integrity of the Library of Congress but also reflects a deeper ideological agenda aimed at reshaping American institutions to align with his administration’s fascist tendencies.

Moreover, Trump’s continued efforts to erase the contributions of established leaders and replace them with politically compliant individuals portray a systematic dismantling of democratic norms. This behavior poses a risk to the resilience of democratic institutions, suggesting an alarming trajectory towards authoritarianism.

As the implications of these personnel changes unfold, it is imperative to remain vigilant against the erosion of democratic values. The appointment of Todd Blanche highlights the urgent need for accountability in political leadership, affirming that safeguarding the integrity of public institutions should take precedence over partisan objectives.

(h/t: https://apnews.com/article/trump-library-congress-todd-blanche-carla-hayden-cc2154fa8644a5c29d196e505e4faa51)

Trump Falsely Claims ‘60 Minutes’ Admitted to ‘Crime’ of Editing Harris Interview

Former President Donald Trump has made false claims regarding CBS’s “60 Minutes,” alleging that the program admitted to a crime by editing an interview with Kamala Harris. This assertion comes alongside his $20 billion lawsuit against Paramount Global and CBS, which he insists is a “true WINNER.” Trump accused the network of deceitfully editing Harris’ response to a question, stating that this act undermined the integrity of the American electoral process and cheated the public.

Both Paramount and CBS have categorically denied Trump’s allegations, labeling his lawsuit as a direct attack on the First Amendment. They argue that Trump’s claims lack any foundation in law or fact. CBS News has stood firm, asserting that the “60 Minutes” broadcast of the Harris interview was neither manipulated nor deceptive.

According to reports, Trump’s legal team is entering mediation with Paramount Global to explore a possible resolution to his lawsuit. Previously, Trump expanded his claims under the federal Lanham Act, demanding at least $20 billion in damages, asserting that the editing of the interview could have affected the outcome of the election.

In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump claimed that the edited response from Harris was disgraceful, suggesting it would have significantly hampered her electoral performance had it been aired in full. He described the actions of CBS and its parent companies as a “Giant FRAUD against the American People,” insisting they should be held accountable for their alleged misconduct.

The New York Times reported on legal experts regarding the frivolity of Trump’s case, prompting him to lash out at the publication, suggesting it too could face consequences for “tortious interference” in elections. The lawsuit and resulting commentary reveal Trump’s ongoing crusade against media institutions he perceives as adversarial, undermining journalistic integrity while striving to consolidate power and control over the narrative.

(h/t: https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/trump-60-minutes-cbs-admitted-crime-harris-interview-mediation-1236382562/)

White House Calls Amazon’s Tariff Transparency a Hostile Act Against Trump Policies

The White House has labeled Amazon’s potential decision to disclose tariff costs as a “hostile act.” During a press briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized the company for considering a display feature that would inform consumers about price markups due to tariffs implemented by President Donald Trump. This aggressive stance highlights the Trump Administration’s attempts to shield itself from negative consequences arising from its economic policies.

Leavitt’s remarks came after a news report indicated Amazon was exploring a checkout feature to inform buyers about additional charges stemming from Trump’s trade policies. She openly questioned why Amazon had not shown similar transparency regarding inflation during Joe Biden’s presidency, framing the situation as politically motivated and biased against the Trump administration.

In response, Amazon refuted the report, clarifying that any discussion of listing import charges was limited to a specific ultra-low-cost store initiative and had not been implemented on their main platform. This rebuttal emphasizes Amazon’s distancing from the narrative being crafted by the Trump Administration, which seeks to control the narrative surrounding economic impacts on consumers.

During the same briefing, Leavitt attempted to redirect attention by referencing a past collaboration between Amazon and Chinese propaganda, suggesting that the company had ulterior political motives. However, she was criticized for using outdated information from a partnership that had been ended for over two years, casting doubt on her credibility and motivations.

Furthermore, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed the administration’s views on tariffs, claiming they would result in significant job losses in China. This aligns with the administration’s broader strategy of deflecting criticism of its tariffs by exaggerating their international impacts, while failing to address the negative consequences for American consumers and businesses.

(h/t: https://www.tmz.com/2025/04/29/white-house-accuses-amazon-hostile-act-tariff-costs-on-orders-site/?adid=social-fb&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR6W4vRlAj8wiySZVYSi6nNwavhwdxPIwFByIjWZELNUL9zt7bYoDZ3YHtBLPw_aem_zdFlhhwktU4FAflLtXW-BA)

Trump’s Pressure Forces Amazon to Conceal Tariff Costs from Consumers

President Donald Trump recently contacted Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to voice his disapproval over a report that Amazon was considering revealing the tariff costs from Trump’s trade policies beside product prices. This communication exemplifies Trump’s aggressive tactics to mitigate any negative reflection on his administration’s policies that impact consumers directly.

The White House reacted strongly against Amazon’s alleged plan, branding it a “hostile and political act.” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt characterized the decision as an affront to both the administration and the American consumer, despite any transparency that might have benefited shoppers faced with inflated prices due to Trump’s tariffs.

Shortly after Trump’s call, Amazon retracted the proposal, asserting it had “never approved” the plan. This rapid change highlights potential pressure from Trump’s administration in response to any moves perceived as critical of their economic strategy. Amazon clarified that the tariff listing was a consideration solely for its budget shopping section, Amazon Haul, and ultimately dismissed as unnecessary.

Leavitt’s remarks also implicated Bezos in a broader narrative of collaboration between billionaires and the Republican establishment, suggesting Bezos’ previous criticisms of Trump have morphed into an unwarranted allegiance. This relationship raises eyebrows, particularly given Bezos’s recent decisions to limit dissenting viewpoints in the editorial section of the Washington Post, a publication he owns.

As Amazon’s pricing policies become ever more entwined with the effects of Trump’s 145% tariff on goods primarily sourced from China, the implications on consumer prices are severe. Bezos’s interactions with Trump and concessions to his policies exemplify how corporate interests often compromise consumer welfare in the pursuit of profit, aligning with the troubling patterns of greed and discrimination prevalent in the current political landscape.

(h/t: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/04/29/white-house-blasts-amazon-over-tariff-cost-report-hostile-and-political-act.html)

Trump’s Title VI Investigation Targets Harvard Law Review for Alleged Racial Bias

The Trump administration has initiated a Title VI investigation into Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review, citing alleged discriminatory practices in the selection of academic articles. This move is seen as part of a broader campaign against prominent institutions by an administration that uses the guise of civil rights enforcement to impose its political agenda.

According to Craig Trainor, the acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, the investigation stems from reports alleging that editorial decisions at the Harvard Law Review were made based on the author’s race, rather than the merit of their work. Trainor emphasized that no institution, regardless of its reputation, is exempt from adhering to federal civil rights laws.

Specific claims have surfaced, including that a Harvard Law Review editor suggested that a submission warranted expedited review solely because the author was a minority. This incident reflects a concerning trend of prioritizing racial identity over qualification, raising questions about the integrity of academic standards.

This investigation aligns with previous actions taken by the Trump administration against Harvard, including the controversial freezing of $2 billion in federal funding due to disagreements over the university’s policies on diversity and inclusion. Harvard has since launched legal action against the administration in response to these budgetary cuts, further escalating tensions.

The ongoing investigation serves as both a warning to other academic institutions and an example of the administration’s authoritarian approach to silencing dissenting voices within the educational realm. By targeting institutions like Harvard, Trump aims to reshape the landscape of higher education, enforcing compliance to his narrow ideology at the expense of academic freedom and equity.

FBI Director Posts Controversial Arrest Photo of Judge Dugan

The FBI Director Kash Patel recently posted a photo on X showing Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan being taken into custody, which raises significant concerns about adherence to established Justice Department policies. Dugan was arrested on charges of obstructing federal immigration efforts, specifically for allegedly aiding an undocumented immigrant evade arrest. Patel’s caption, “No one is above the law,” underscores a chilling message amidst a climate of intimidation against judicial officials.

According to the Department of Justice’s own guidelines, personnel are prohibited from disclosing photographs of defendants unless it serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose or is already part of the public record. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who implemented these guidelines during the Obama administration, highlighted that Patel’s post appears to violate these protocols, suggesting the intent was more about intimidation than justice.

Dugan’s attorney, Craig Mastantuono, criticized the FBI’s approach, stating that there was no immediate threat that warranted such a public display. The lack of a genuine safety concern emphasizes that the arrest and subsequent media portrayal serve more to target and intimidate judges who may not align with the current administration’s immigration policies rather than to uphold the law impartially.

This incident illustrates the deeper fractures within the judicial system fostered by the Trump-era rhetoric that often undermines the independence of the judiciary. The implications of such public shaming through social media posts not only affect the individual involved but also send a broader message to others in the judiciary about the potential repercussions of their decisions regarding controversial policies.

The failure of current Attorney General Pam Bondi to clarify or modify this policy following Patel’s post signals a troubling trend that threatens to further politicize the judiciary. Such actions could result in severe consequences for the impartial administration of justice—an alarming reality in the context of ongoing partisan tensions exemplified by Trump’s anti-judiciary vitriol.

(h/t: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/26/politics/patel-wisconsin-judge-photo-violate-conduct/index.html)

FBI Director Kash Patel sparked controversy by posting a photo on X of Wisconsin Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest, described as a “perp walk,” which may violate Justice Department policy regarding the treatment of defendants. Dugan was arrested for allegedly obstructing immigration enforcement by helping an undocumented immigrant evade arrest, signifying escalating tensions within U.S. immigration law enforcement.

The photo showcased Dugan handcuffed and being escorted by law enforcement officials, accompanied by Patel’s caption stating, “No one is above the law.” Former Attorney General Eric Holder criticized the post, arguing it contradicts DOJ guidelines that discourage the release of such images unless they serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Holder emphasized that the post’s intent appears to promote intimidation rather than uphold justice.

Dugan’s arrest raises significant questions about the current direction of the DOJ under the leadership of Attorney General Pam Bondi. Following Patel’s post, there are concerns regarding whether Bondi has revised the department’s photo release policy, which historically aimed to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings and the presumption of innocence.

This incident reflects broader issues surrounding the politicization of the judiciary, particularly under a Republican-led administration that has shown a willingness to manipulate legal proceedings for political gain. The FBI’s action, alongside Patel’s social media activity, demonstrates a troubling trend of undermining judicial fairness and likely aims to intimidate those who oppose the current administration’s harsh immigration policies.

Dugan faces multiple charges of obstruction and concealing an individual from arrest, but initial court proceedings led to her release from detention. As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of this case extend beyond Dugan herself, signaling potential dangers to judicial independence and a fair trial in a politicized environment.

1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 176