Roger Stone Suggests Democratic Senator Should Face 'Execution' After He Criticized Trump's Crypto Ventures
Roger Stone, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, suggested Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) should face 'execution' after the lawmaker questioned Trump's recent business ventures into cryptocurrency.
'Trump is cashing in on his presidency and making millions from his own crypto coins. It's corruption in broad daylight,' Kelly wrote on X Wednesday, promoting the 'End Crypto Corruption Act,' which he said would make it illegal for 'the President, the Vice President, administration officials, and members of Congress to issue, sponsor, or endorse crypto assets for profit.'
Earlier this month, the State Democracy Defenders Fund pointed out that reporting suggested the president's crypto offerings may account for nearly 40% of his wealth. The President has even invited people who invest in his $TRUMP meme coin to a private dinner at his golf club in Virginia.
'This bill puts forward a blanket prohibition on acts that could be self-serving in order to guard against conflicts of interest,' Kelly wrote in Wednesday's announcement.
In a responding post on X, Stone accused the lawmaker of 'treason.'
'Senator Mark Kelly is cashing in on his US Senate seat as a partner in a Chinese communist company that makes surveillance balloons,' Stone wrote. 'He should be charged with treason and if convicted executed , consistent with federal law.'
Kelly's wife and mass shooting survivor Gabrielle Giffords responded to Stone's comment on Friday, stating 'Trump and his allies should understand that the threat of political violence is real.' Giffords was left in critical condition in 2011 after being shot in the head in an assassination attempt.
'It stole a job that I loved. Inciting violence is unAmerican — it's what extremists do. Anyone serious about protecting this country should know the difference,' Giffords wrote.
Stone doubled down on his original statement in response to Giffords' post.
'I said he should be TRIED and if convicted, of course the penalty for treason is capital punishment. But of course you left that part out. Typical left-wing distortion.!' Stone wrote.
Democrats Tank Crypto Bill Amid Alarm Over Trump Corruption
Dems Balk At Crypto Bill As Trump Family Profits Off Tokens
Company Boasts Spending Up To $20 Million On Trump Crypto Coin To Buy Influence
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: What America's default risk is costing you
For decades, investors thought the risk of the US government defaulting on its debt was essentially zero. It was nice while it lasted. There's still a low chance the US government will fail to pay principal or interest on nearly $30 trillion worth of Treasury securities circulating around the world. But global investors think US debt is getting riskier, and they also think US policymakers in Congress and the Trump administration are doing nothing about it. That rising risk is likely pushing interest costs higher for every American borrowing to finance a home, a car, or a business investment. A new paper published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago uses an arcane security known as a credit default swap, or CDS, to estimate the risk of the US Treasury defaulting on a payment. The analysis highlights not just the damage caused by 15 years of political squabbling in Congress over budget issues but also the startling decline in market assessments of US creditworthiness. Congress may soon make this worse by passing a tax-cut bill that makes America's fiscal position even shakier. There are two basic market concerns with America's creditworthiness. One is the sheer amount of borrowing the US government must do to finance annual deficits that are now routinely close to $2 trillion. The total national debt is $36.2 trillion, and the amount of US debt in circulation now equals about 100% of GDP, a record for peacetime. That's only going higher. The other issue is the US debt ceiling, which puts a limit on the total amount of federal borrowing the Treasury is allowed to do. The debt limit itself isn't problematic. But Congress's handling of it is. Three times — in 2011, 2013, and 2023 — Congress has refused to raise the borrowing limit until the Treasury Department was dangerously close to running out of money. If the Treasury missed even a single payment it owed, it would constitute a default and roil the global trillion-dollar market for Treasury securities, the world's most widely traded assets. In January, the Treasury hit the debt limit once again. Since then, it has been relying on 'extraordinary measures' — basically, moving money around — to pay its bills. Congress must soon raise the debt limit once again, with the Treasury likely to run out of maneuvering room sometime between mid and late summer. Credit-default swaps are private contracts that work like an insurance policy, with one party agreeing to cover losses for a second party if the issuer of a given security defaults. The market for CDS contracts on government debt has been most active during debt crises in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Greece, and Italy. The market for CDSs guaranteeing US debt is often dormant. But it springs to life around the time that the US debt ceiling needs to be raised, because Congress could trigger a default by waiting too long. The Chicago Fed research uses data on CDS pricing to estimate the market's perception of the risk of US default going back 14 years. In 2011, the United States came within a few days of default before Democrats and Republicans sparring in Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling. That standoff led S&P to downgrade the US credit rating for the first time ever. The Chicago Fed paper estimates that the risk of default in 2011 peaked at more than than 6%. During debt-ceiling showdowns in 2013 and 2023, CDS pricing suggests the risk of default peaked at around 4%. CDS pricing today suggests the risk of a US default is around 1%. It's lower now than in prior standoffs because Republicans have unified control of Congress and don't need to negotiate with the opposition party to raise the borrowing limit. That 1% risk could also go higher as the Treasury comes closer to the "X date" when it runs out of money.A 1% risk of default might seem inconsequential. But it's not. 'Everyone says the US will never default,' David Kotok, co-founder of investing firm Cumberland Advisors, told Yahoo Finance. 'Somebody is saying, we don't believe you. The CDS market is saying the risk is greater than zero.' Kotok estimates that the higher perceived risk of default pushes the interest rate on a typical mortgage up by about three-tenths of a percentage point. That's because investors demand higher interest rates on riskier securities, such as the 10-year Treasury note, which is the benchmark for most interest rates paid on business and consumer loans. Read more: What is the 10-year Treasury note, and how does it affect your finances? On a 30-year mortgage for a median-priced house, lowering the interest rate by three-tenths of a point would lower the monthly payment by about $66. That's $792 per year or $23,769 over the course of the loan. Not a fortune, maybe, but shrewd investors welcome every marginal gain. Congress could eliminate the debt limit altogether by repealing the 1917 law that was supposed to simplify government borrowing, rather than creating a default mechanism. Back then, the executive branch needed congressional approval for every unique instance of borrowing. The debt limit was supposed to let the Treasury borrow freely up to a certain limit. That worked more or less as intended until 2011, when Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives, used the debt ceiling as leverage to negotiate spending cuts with Democrats, who controlled the Senate and the White House. Repealing the debt limit might wipe out the market for credit default swaps on US debt, since debt limit deadlines are the very thing creating the default risk. Nobody would complain about that. Kotok estimates that the 30-basis-point premium on US interest rates would disappear. Then the US government would only face one debt problem: the vast amount of it. Markets have been jeering the mushrooming national debt this year, with investors showing unprecedented reluctance to buy some US assets. That has been another factor pushing US interest rates higher, when in normal market action, they'd be holding steady or falling. JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon is the latest voice of alarm on the US debt, warning that a 'crack' in the bond market could signal coming market turmoil. That would most likely occur as more investors shunned US assets, including Treasurys, sending rates even higher. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says Dimon is overreacting, giving cover to Republicans working up the big tax-cut bill that could add another $3 trillion or $4 trillion to the national debt. Moody's downgraded US debt for the first time in May following Fitch's first-ever downgrade in 2023. Like S&P in 2011, both rating agencies cited political dysfunction and huge annual deficits. The rumble of discontent with America's fiscal recklessness is growing louder. Eventually, they'll start to hear it in Washington, D.C. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The true cost of Trump's massive military parade seems to keep getting worse
Donald Trump's plans for a massive, expensive military parade in Washington, D.C., already seemed absurd when juxtaposed against his administration's mass firings at federal agencies and his plans to institute deep cuts to federal programs many Americans rely on. But the true cost of the parade seems to keep getting worse. The president recently told NBC News' Kristen Welker that the June 14 parade's price tag — which could reach $45 million — would be 'peanuts compared to the value of doing it.' But the actual value of hosting a parade — which, in a fashion reminiscent of dictatorships, will feature dozens of military vehicles and thousands of service members — is debatable at best. And NBC News reported recently on some of the destruction that the June 14 parade — a seemingly frivolous pet project to celebrate 250 years of the U.S. Army that just so happens to fall on Trump's birthday — stands to inflict on Washington's streets: The cost to repair Washington, D.C., streets after the upcoming military parade celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary could cost as much as $16 million, according to U.S. military officials. That's part of an estimated $45 million total cost for the June 14 military parade, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. The cost estimates have fluctuated as planning continues. And that's taxpayer money being spent as Trump withholds tens of millions of dollars allocated for things like climate change studies and other research grants, or any number of federal programs that stand to benefit a large number of Americans — certainly more so than a military parade. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has been sounding the alarm for months on the parade's potential destruction, saying in April that military tanks 'would not be good,' adding: 'If military tanks were used, they should be accompanied with many millions of dollars to repair the roads.' Republicans have been eager to use their federal power over Washington — due to it not being an official state — no matter what the mayor says. In March, Bowser said her decision to paint over a D.C. plaza honoring the Black Lives Matter movement came amid pressure from the White House, suggesting she had acquiesced because there are 'bigger fish to fry.' And now House Republicans — who have refused to address a $1 billion funding shortfall they created for the district — are trying to pass a law that would roll back voting rights in D.C. as well. All of this appears to be aligned with Trump's declaration that the federal government should 'take over' Washington, using language befitting the leader of an occupying military. And his massive, expensive and literally destructive military parade — all at taxpayers' expense — seems like it would be a crowning achievement in that mission. This article was originally published on
Screen Geek
14 minutes ago
- Screen Geek
Blake Lively Withdraws Claims Against Justin Baldoni Of Infliction Of Emotional Distress
Celebrities Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni have been caught in a legal debacle with one another since drama erupted on the set of It Ends With Us . Now another development in the situation has surfaced, as Lively is apparently in the process of withdrawing her claims against Baldoni regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. As shared via Variety, this decision was made when 'Baldoni's legal team sought discovery that included her medical records in their efforts to defend the ' It Ends With Us ' director against her claim that she suffered 'severe emotional distress and pain, humiliation, embarrassment, belittlement, frustration and mental anguish.'' The outlet continues: 'Lively's attempt to withdraw the two claims surfaced in a filing Monday by Baldoni's attorneys, who are seeking to compel the actress to sign a HIPAA release for access to therapy notes and other relevant information.' The following statement was taken from the filing: 'Instead of complying with the Medical RFPs, Ms. Lively's counsel recently advised us, in writing, that Ms. Lively is withdrawing her [infliction of emotional distress] Claims ,' the filing states. 'However, Ms. Lively has refused the Wayfarer Parties' reasonable request that the withdrawal of such claims be with prejudice . She is only willing to withdraw her claims without prejudice. In other words, Ms. Lively wants to simultaneously: (a) refuse to disclose the information and documents needed to disprove that she suffered any emotional distress and/or that the Wayfarer Parties were the cause; and (b) maintain the right to re-file her IED Claims at an unknown time in this or some other court after the discovery window has closed.' A response to the matter was shared by Lively's lawyers, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, who further called the filing 'a press stunt.' The two added that there are actually 'streamlining and focusing' her case. The two shared the following statement insisting that 'Ms. Lively continues to allege emotional distress' as part of the ongoing debacle: 'The Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive new damages claims under California law, rendering certain of Ms. Lively's original claims no longer necessary. Ms. Lively continues to allege emotional distress, as part of numerous other claims in her lawsuit, such as sexual harassment and retaliation, and massive additional compensatory damages on all of her claims.' As for the court's part in all this, they 'need to decide whether to compel Lively to turn over the information on her mental health, which she has sought to avoid, or dismiss the two claims with or without prejudice. 'It is standard procedure in cases alleging physical or emotional injury for the defense to access the plaintiff's medical records that would shine a light on the root and scope of alleged distress.' The outlet does note that it's 'unusual' in this case 'for a plaintiff to abandon the claims midstream given that it is well known heading into such a lawsuit that medical records will be an unpleasant but inevitable part of the discovery process.' The filing to Judge Liman in U.S. District Court Southern District of New York and signed by Baldoni attorney Kevin Fritz reads as follows: 'Ms. Lively cannot have it both ways. If Ms. Lively wants to withdraw her frivolous IED Claims, the Wayfarer Parties are entitled to a dismissal with prejudice to ensure they will not be re-filed. If Ms. Lively is unwilling to stipulate to the dismissal of her IED Claims with prejudice, then the Wayfarer Parties will continue to defend against them, and she must produce her medical information and documents as set forth herein.' It's clear that this legal situation will continue to become more complicated and complex as it progresses. With several related lawsuits in the process, and these latest developments, we'll have to see where this debacle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni heads next. Stay tuned to ScreenGeek for any additional updates as we have them.
