Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR, slammed the New York Times’ for publishing the story that Russia put financial bounties on U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan, saying the paper can’t be trusted when it comes to “anything” the paper reports “on Russia and Trump,” during an interview with Fox News host Sandra Smith Thursday.
Just a month ago, Cotton published an op-ed in the paper title, “Send In The Troops.” Cotton was referring to the number of violent riots springing up across the country in the wake of the tragic death of George Floyd.
Cotton’s piece received condemnation from a number of the paper’s reporters and caused the editorial editor to be ousted. When it comes to the Times, Cotton knows from recent firsthand experience just how they operate.
“I’m always open to taking a tougher line on Russia. But, the allegations in the New York Times are simply false as they usually are,” Cotton explained to Smith.
Cotton added, “Sandra, what’s regrettable is that someone in the intelligence community or perhaps in a partnered nation’s intelligence community decided to leak partial and incomplete intelligence. Intelligence services often get that kind of partial, incomplete, or conflicting evidence. They don’t always run to the President or to a prime minister to share it with them until it’s verified and corroborated, until then they understand the fuller picture.”
The Trump administration says that the President wasn’t briefed on the matter because there was “strong disagreement inside of our intelligence community about whether or not this intelligence was correct or not,” Cotton explained.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are moving to sanction Russia’s President Vladimir Putin over the NYT’s story, citing concerns that Trump’s been soft on Russia. However, Cotton says, “They’re simply using another fake story from the New York Times for political gain.”
BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling
Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.
The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.
Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.
In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.
Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.
Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.
Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.
The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.
Trump vows to appeal the decision.
National Security6 days ago
Authorities catch Afghan national on terror watchlist at southern CA border
Israel5 days ago
Iran-backed Houthis recruiting ‘thousands’ of children after Oct 7 massacre
China6 days ago
Hunter associate: China successfully attempted to ‘infiltrate and compromise’ Biden family and Obama White House
Immigration4 days ago
Feds bust ‘sophisticated’ trucking operation smuggling drugs in fire extinguishers after two year operation