New York Times reports that Judge Aileen Cannon plans to make another pro-Trump ruling, but experts say she likely lacks jurisdiction to make such a move

Lisa Rubin (MSNBC)

The New York Times reported this morning that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, of Florida, intended to issue an order that would temporarily block Special Counsel Jack Smith from releasing his report on the criminal investigation of President-Elect Donald Trump. The order would be in line with Cannon's history of making dubious rulings that favor Trump, the president who nominated her for the federal bench. By this afternoon, legal experts were stating that Cannon probably does not have authority to make such a ruling, according to a report at Raw Story (RS) under the headline "'No basis': Experts believe Aileen Cannon may not have power to block Jack Smith report." RS's Brad Reed writes:

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin on Tuesday (1/7/25) questioned whether Judge Aileen Cannon has the authority to block the United States Department of Justice from releasing special counsel Jack Smith's report on his two criminal investigations into President-elect Donald Trump.

"It is not clear... whether she has jurisdiction because earlier this year, she threw out the Mar-a-Lago documents case explaining that, from her reasoning, Jack Smith did not have constitutional authority to bring that prosecution under the appointments clause of the Constitution," Rubin said.

"And so there is no basis here to block the report in part because it is not clear there is a case or controversy in front of her, but if there were, the argument that Trump is making -- that presidential immunity also precludes the release of the report -- is a stretch of the Supreme Court's ruling that a president cannot be prosecuted for acts having to do with his presidency while he is a sitting president."

 Rubin was not the only expert to take issue with Cannon's plans. Reed reports:

Legal analyst Barbara McQuade, meanwhile, speculated that Cannon's move was simply to help Trump run out the clock until his inauguration on January 20th.

"I don't think she has any jurisdiction, but delay is the name of the game," she said. "If they can stop the clock until January 20th. then the Department of Justice will be a Trump appointee, and they will kill the whole thing. That's the goal here."

Jack Smith is due to submit reports on Trump probe this week to AG Merrick Garland, but Trump is scrambling to keep the documents out of public view

Merrick Garland and Jack Smith (Reuters)

Special Counsel Jack Smith is set to submit two reports on his investigations of Donald Trump to Attorney General Merrick Garland, a step Smith is required by law to take. Will Garland release the reports for everyday Americans to scrutinize? If Garland sticks to his previous public statements, the answer is yes. But in what should be a surprise to no one, Trump and his lawyers -- sounding more than a little desperate -- are trying desperately to keep the reports out of public view. Why? We will have thoughts on that question in an upcoming post. But for now, Garland is expected to make his release decision by the end of the week. In a joint report from The Washington Post (WaPo) and the Microsoft Network (MSN), we get a hint of what might be in the reports and how their releases are likely to be handled. Under the headline "Trump’s lawyers ask AG Garland not to release special counsel report," WaPo's Perry Stein writes:

Donald Trump’s lawyers have read special counsel Jack Smith’s draft report detailing the findings of his two investigations of the incoming president and are urging Attorney General Merrick Garland to fire Smith and block the report’s public release.

It is the latest effort by the president-elect to quash the remnants of the four criminal cases he has faced over the past two years. 

Justice Department regulations say special counsels must submit a report explaining their legal decisions at the conclusion of an investigation, though it’s up to the attorney general to decide whether those findings are made public.

During Garland’s tenure leading the agency, he has indicated he would release any special counsel report that reaches his desk, redacting material that he thinks needs to remain out of public view. But an ongoing appeal in one of the two cases against Trump that Smith oversaw means releasing that portion of the report could be more complicated.

In a court filing early Tuesday, Smith said Garland might not make that part of the report public. If the attorney general does release it, Smith said that would not happen before Friday morning at the earliest, giving the court a few days to act.

Friday morning is when Trump is separately scheduled to be sentenced for his conviction in New York state court of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment ahead of the 2016 election. His lawyers are also trying to block that sentencing, saying that even though the judge has made clear he will not give Trump jail time or probation, getting sentenced just days before his inauguration would disrupt the presidential transition.

Trump’s lawyers are making similar arguments about the two-volume special counsel report. One volume focuses on Smith’s investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents after his first term in the White House. The other focuses on Smith’s probe into Trump’s efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory.

In a bid to make sure the public remains in the dark, Trump and his lawyers are resorting to nonsensical arguments. It's good to know Team Trump has no shame. Stein reports:

“Releasing Smith’s report is obviously not in the public interest — particularly in light of President Trump’s commanding victory in the election and the sensitive nature of the ongoing transition process,” Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro said in a letter to Garland that was included in an emergency motion filed in Florida federal court Monday evening.

The motion was submitted by lawyers for Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, Trump’s co-defendants in Smith’s classified-document case. They asked U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon to block the release of Smith’s report, citing her decision last summer to dismiss the classified documents indictment after she ruled Smith was unlawfully appointed.

It's not in the public interest to know about possible criminal activity by their president-elect? That shows how much Team Trump respects the public's right to know, which usually includes the right to view court documents, which generally are treated as public. As for Trump's "mandate," it turned out to be weak. He received 77,284,118 votes for 49.8 percent -- or less than 50 percent of the vote. Kamala Harris won 74,999,166 votes for 48.3 percent. Trump's margin of victory was 1.5 percent.

Excluding Trump's 46.2 percent in 2016, you have to go back to Grover Cleveland's 46.1 percent in 1892 (124 years) to reach such a low margin of victory. A "commanding victory"? Not even by Grover  Cleveland's standards.

As for the  2024 election, will Judge Cannon's finding that Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed hold up. WaPo's Stein has doubts:

Cannon’s ruling on Smith broke with decades of legal precedent involving special or independent counsels. The Justice Department is appealing, with Nauta and De Oliveira as defendants. Smith dropped Trump from the appeal because he won the November election and Justice Department policy prohibits prosecuting sitting presidents.

It is unclear whether Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, would have clear authority to intervene in Garland’s decision on whether to release Smith’s report. But with the litigation against Nauta and De Oliveira ongoing, the co-defendants argued that the report could be detrimental to them and asked Cannon to hold a hearing on the matter.

“These Defendants will irreparably suffer harm as civilian casualties of the Government’s impermissible and contumacious utilization of political lawfare to include release of the unauthorized Report,” their motion said.  

The judge who oversaw the D.C. federal election interference case, Tanya S. Chutkan, has indicated she disagrees with Cannon’s decision and believes Smith was rightfully appointed. Chutkan dismissed the D.C. election-interference case at Smith’s request in November, again because of Trump’s election victory.

The letter to Garland that was included in the Florida filings shows that Trump’s attorneys are separately appealing to the attorney general not to release either volume of Smith’s report. Blanche — whom Trump has said he would nominate to be deputy attorney general in his administration — and Lauro cited Cannon’s decision in their letter, saying that if Smith is unlawfully appointed, he should not be able to compile a report.

“The release of any confidential report prepared by this out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor would be nothing more than a lawless political stunt, designed to politically harm President Trump and justify the huge sums of taxpayer money Smith unconstitutionally spent on his failed and dismissed cases,” the letter reads.

The lawyers told the attorney general that Smith allowed them to review the draft report in person in Washington, but complained that they were prohibited from using electronic devices during the review. They asked Garland to fire Smith and said that if he chooses not to, he should allow Trump’s Justice Department — where Blanche, if confirmed, would hold the No. 2 position — to decide what to do with the completed report.

Blanche and Lauro argued that the report disregards the presumption of innocence and said its release would create a storm of negative media attention around Trump, requiring him to defend himself and interfering with his transition to office.

Smith’s office said in its filing Tuesday that his staff was working to finalize the report. Assistant special counsel James Pearce wrote that when Nauta and De Oliveira filed their motion with Cannon seeking to block the report’s release, “the parties were conferring” but the attorney general had “not yet determined how to handle the report volume pertaining to this case.” 

Garland appointed Smith in November 2022 to oversee the two federal investigations of the former president, after Trump announced he would again seek the White House. A special counsel has greater independence than a typical prosecutor, though still ultimately reports to the attorney general.

Both cases had been delayed in the appeals courts and were far from reaching a trial when Trump won last year’s election. While much of the evidence against Trump in the two cases was revealed in the indictments and pretrial proceedings, a special counsel report could lay out the strategy the government would have employed against Trump at trial and the full scope of the evidence in the cases.

Before Trump takes office, the Justice Department is also expected to release a report by special counsel David Weiss detailing the investigation of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

A federal jury in Delaware convicted Hunter Biden of gun charges as a result of that investigation, and he separately pleaded guilty to federal tax charges in Los Angeles last year. The president pardoned his son last month.

The fourth anniversary of Jan. 6, 2021, rekindles memories of thugs in the U.S. Capitol -- especially since the chief thug now is set to become president

"Patriots" overtake the U.S. Capitol on 1/6/21 (YouTube)

An untold number of words were published yesterday about it being the fourth anniversary of January 6, 2021 -- one of the most awful days in U.S. history. I will submit that if you are an American of adult age, you should consider it the worst day of your life -- at least in a big-picture "the fate of our country is at stake" sense. 

Now that the anniversary is behind us, I'm not sure many Americans think much about Jan. 6, or even take it seriously. Some surely see it as a positive, although I'm not sure how warped you have to be to take that view. Perhaps we live in a diseased country, filled with warped people who genuinely believe we need to replace 250 years of democracy with some form of authoritarian government that will be based on the whims of "President-Elect" Donald Trump. (I put "President-Elect" in quotation marks because considerable evidence points to the 2024 election being hacked to benefit Trump and steal the presidency from Democrat Kamala Harris. Longtime election-integrity expert Steven Spoonamore has conducted more research and published more articles than anyone I know of on the hacking issue. I would encourage all Americans to read Spoonamore's work because he spells out how a stolen election can, and most likely did, happen here. He certainly has convinced me that I am among the millions of Americans who do not know that Trump actually won the 2024 election -- or that he will be a legitimate president when he is inaugurated in two weeks.

Of all the insightful articles published about the Jan. 6 anniversary, I must give a special hat tip for a particularly compelling piece to William Kristol, of The Bulwark. He begins by writing under the banner headline "Our National Day of Shame." Then he narrows it down to this secondary headline -- "It’s January 6th. Trump Won." I suspect that was written as a combination of grim reality and bitter sarcasm. If it was meant to be a splash of cold water in the face to those of us who believe Trump is wildly unfit to be president (and Kristol seems to fit in that group), it served its purpose.

Why is Kristol's piece so effective? He serves up some hope, but the article, as a whole, is not terribly hopeful. It's much too real for that. He serves up grim reality, but the whole article is not grim. Kristol begins:

George Orwell wrote that in our day “restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

So let me restate the obvious: January 6, 2021 is a day that should live in infamy.

But for the next four years January 6th won’t live in infamy. Because in two weeks the man who incited January 6th, the man who now excuses it—no, celebrates it—will be sworn in as our next president.

So the obvious if unpleasant fact is that today we as a nation are in a worse condition, facing a more ominous future, than we faced four years ago.

The mob violence of January 6th was awful. That it was incited by the president of the United States made it worse. That it was the capstone of a more comprehensive effort by President Trump and his apparatchiks to overturn the election results and to stay in power made the date even more deserving of infamy.

Warning: If you are a Never-Trumper, the following section is indeed grim - no punches pulled:

But Biden’s silence about Trump merely brings home the extent of Trump’s success. The January 6th truther-in-chief will be our next commander-in-chief. And his administration will be staffed by individuals who range from January 6th apologists to January 6th celebrators.

Meanwhile, the ranks of Trump’s party are full of such people, as is suggested by the fact that the leadership of the Republican House has refused to install a plaque honoring Capitol Police officers for their brave actions on January 6th, as required by a federal law signed in March 2023.

It is in a way fitting that one of the first acts of the new Trump administration will be presidential pardons or commutations for many of the January 6th felons. Why not? Their leader will be president. Why should they languish in prison?

Some of the more respectable supporters of the new administration are aware of how distasteful this will be. The Wall Street Journal editorial page frets that “pardoning such crimes would send an awful message about [Trump’s] view of the acceptability of political violence done on his behalf.”

But that is Trump’s view. Indeed, it’s his oft-expressed view. Indeed, he ran for office on this view—and won. The fact that some establishment types have chosen to close their eyes to this isn’t his fault.

Kristol returns to a sense of hope, and the following words could be seen as the heart of his piece:

What can be done? Here in the United States, there are thankfully many sources of possible resistance, ranging from others in government—at both the federal and state level—to institutions in the private sector and civil society. They all have a role to play in the fight against the whitewashing of history and the erasure of truth.

But in the near term, it is the Senate of the United States that can do the most to help. It is the Senate that has to choose whether to confirm Trump’s cabinet and sub-cabinet nominees. It is Senate committees that can hold hearings and get those nominees on the record on January 6th.

All senators have to do is to ask the nominees whether they agree with what President Trump said on January 7, 2021—that what happened on January 6th was a “heinous attack” and that “the demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy.”

Senators can ask this of all nominees. And Senators can refuse to confirm at least some of the January 6th deniers, especially those nominated to important positions in law enforcement and national security.

One nominee particularly deserving of decisive rejection is Kash Patel, selected to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In an important article this morning, Tom Joscelyn and Norm Eisen lay out evidence that clearly shows why Patel is unfit to serve as FBI director. They show in great detail that Patel has embraced and promulgated false conspiracy theories not just about January 6th in general, but about the very organization he’s been nominated to lead.

The authors conclude, “That is not only an insult to the memory of that day; it should be disqualifying for him to helm the bureau.”

Will it be? Will the United States Senate permit Trump to install a full-on January 6th truther as head of the FBI? Or will some Republican senators put country before party, enabling the Senate to set up some roadblocks to our steep descent on a path towards an Orwellian and authoritarian future?

Is Donald Trump's desire for a "big beautiful bill" to launch his legislative agenda a sign the GOP is headed for a train wreck that could derail their momentum

Donald Trump and Mike Johnson (Getty)

 

Donald Trump is urging Congressional Republicans to help launch his legislative agenda with a "big, beautiful bill" whose size is designed to help get it passed as quickly as possible. A number of news outlets have reported that creating and shepherding such a large document is likely to be complicated, especially for a president-elect who never has shown much interest in the mechanics of government. Count Sarah Jones and Jason Easley, of thedaily@ politicususa.com, among those who see big trouble looming for Trump and his party -- and perhaps for the U.S. economy. Under the headline "Trump's Latest Big Idea Will Sink Republicans; According to Speaker Mike Johnson, Trump wants all of his legislative agenday put into one bill to be passed all at once. This will be a disaster," Jones and Easley write:

Mike Johnson Unveils Trump’s Big (Dumb) Idea

Over the past decade, Donald Trump has repeatedly confirmed that he knows nothing about governing. He has also proven that he has no interest in governing, so the United States is about to find out what will happen when one of the most governing inept presidents in history decides that he has an idea and no one in his party is brave enough to say no.

Mike Johnson explained what Trump wants to do on Fox News:

 The idea would be to get something done on the border and maybe defense spending right out of the blocks very quickly and what we would call a skinny reconciliation bill and then do other things. The rest of it in a larger chunk later, but I think at the end of the day, President Trump is going to prefer, as he likes to say, one big beautiful bill.

And there's a lot of merit to that, because we can put it all together, one big up or down vote, which can save the country, quite literally, because there are so many elements to it, and it'll give us a little bit more time to negotiate that and get it right. That doesn't mean that we won't come right out of the gates.

You know, full fledged, right out of the beginning of the Congress, and so we'll be addressing border. We've got a number of bills just over the next two weeks, Maria, that we're going to address the low hanging fruit, so to speak. I think that there's some things that are so common sense that we've got to focus on the border.

We might even be able to get some Democrat votes on some of that legislation, but we'll pass it out of the House and send it over to the Senate and get it ready for when President Trump takes office on January 20th. We have a lot to do and a short amount of time to do it in.

House Republicans will have a 217-215 majority and, after special elections, will have a 219-215 majority.

Do Jones and Easley see problems with the Trump/Johnson approach? Yes, indeed:

One Big Beautiful Train Wreck

This is an even smaller House majority than the one that couldn’t agree on a bill to fund the government before Christmas and needed Democratic help to get it done...

It appears such help from across the aisle will not be coming this time. Have Trump and Johnson factored that into the equation that is designed to move a "big, beautiful bill" forward? We should start to know in about two weeks.

Even at a time of national tragedy, Trump hauls out his usual barrage of lies in a lame attempt to capitalize politically on a flawed report from, surprise, Fox News

(YouTube)

 

The injuries and loss of life certainly are the most tragic elements in the 1/1/25 terror attacks in New Orleans and Las Vegas. But a different level of tragedy also is unfolding with the violent images. If Americans thought president-elect Donald Trump would show some measure of dignity in the face of grief and fear, they were wrong. If Americans thought Trump would speak truthfully -- perhaps even trying to uplift the public after a horrific event that was international in scope -- they were wrong. Instead, Trump tried to trash our country, using language that was tasteless, even by his standards.

The Economic Times (ET) reports on the president-elect's unsoothing words under the headline "Trump calls US a 'disaster, laughing stock'; blasts Democrats, FBI after deadly mishaps sent shockwaves in America":

Hours after the deadly mass killing in New Orleans killed 15 people, including the suspect, and injured several others, political figures on the right—most notably former President Donald Trump gave a fiery statement condemning the crash. Donald Trump has said that “the USA is breaking down” and has blamed the “weak, ineffective, and virtually nonexistent leadership” for the nation’s downfall.

His statement slammed the US security system and came after the deadly New Orleans car attack, although he did specifically mention the incident in his post. Trump also blamed the Democrats, Department of Justice and FBI, saying "they have not done their job."

“Our Country is a disaster, a laughing stock all over the World! This is what happens when you have OPEN BORDERS, with weak, ineffective, and virtually nonexistent leadership,” the president-elect wrote on Truth Social. “The DOJ, FBI, and Democrat state and local prosecutors have not done their job. They are incompetent and corrupt, having spent all of their waking hours unlawfully attacking their political opponent, ME, rather than focusing on protecting Americans from the outside and inside violent SCUM that has infiltrated all aspects of our government, and our Nation itself. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen to our Country," his post read. (Note: Open borders had nothing to do with the acts of terror. The New Orleans suspect --  Shamsud Din-Jabbar -- could hardly be more American. He was born here and lived almost all of his life in Texas, except when he was on assignment for the U.S Army. Matthew Livelsberger, the suspect in Las Vegas, also was a citizen and a military man. He was a highly decorated U.S. Army Green Beret who deployed twice to Afghanistan, officials said. Livelsberger died from a gunshot wound that appeared to be self-inflicted before his Tesla Cybertruck burst into flames at the entrance to a Trump hotel in Las Vegas.)

The ET report spells out how wrong Trump was to tie the attacks to immigration and noted that he seemed to be trying to score political points from a tragedy. Americans likely can expect more such classy reactions to world events from our "Dear Leader" over "the next four years. (Why do I put "the next four years" in quotation marks? Substantial evidence raises questions about whether Trump actually won the 2024 election. Stephen Spoonamore, a leading election-integrity expert, has pointed to signs the election was hacked to benefit Trump and steal a race she likely won from Kamala Harris. Spoonamore has called for a hand recount, but it's unclear if Harris, President Joe Biden, or anyone else from the Democratic Party will do anything about it.) Here is more from ET:

Trump stirs immigration debate again

Earlier reports which wrongly tied the attack to the southern border, provided ammunition for an explosive narrative centered on immigration, even before the facts had been fully established. The attack, initially reported by Fox News as potentially connected to the southern border, quickly spiraled into a frenzy of speculation from right-wing figures eager to tie the tragedy to President Joe Biden’s immigration policies.

Trump, as well as his VP choice J.D. Vance, wasted no time in linking the violence to the southern border. “When I said that the criminals coming in are far worse than the criminals we have in our country, that statement was constantly refuted by Democrats and the Fake News Media, but it turned out to be true,” Trump posted on Truth Social just hours after the incident. (In reality, of course, the statement was not true -- meaning Trump met a moment of immense anxiety with his usual pack of lies.)

Trump went on to express condolences for the victims but included a pointed remark blaming border security under Biden’s administration.

Vance, who retweeted Trump’s post, echoed similar rhetoric, further fueling the narrative. The frenzy was sparked by a faulty Fox News report that erroneously stated the vehicle involved in the attack had crossed the US-Mexico border just two days earlier. The network retracted the report by midday, acknowledging that the truck had entered the US on November 16 from Mexico but was driven by 42-year-old Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a US Army veteran with no direct ties to the border.

Trump's message, it turns out was driven by a flawed report from Fox News, of all people. Trump long has proven adept at creating his own lies, but now he is borrowing lies from Fox News:

Trump’s statement came following a series of violent incidents in the United States, including the New Orleans attack and the Tesla Cybertruck explosion outside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, which resulted in the death of the driver. In the New Orleans attack, at least 15 people died when suspected terrorist Shamsud-Din Jabbar plowed a pickup truck bearing an ISIS flag into New Year’s Eve revelers on Bourbon Street. He was eventually shot dead by cops.

In a previous Truth Social post, Trump said his administration “will fully support the City of New Orleans as they investigate and recover from this act of pure evil!”

Yes, the acts of terror were pure evil, but they had nothing to do with the Biden administration's immigration policies -- and Trump might have realized that if he had not been so busy trying to capitalize politically from a time of tragedy.

Terror comes to America: With deadly attacks in New Orleans and Las Vegas, plus homemade bombs found in Virginia -- and all Trump can do is spew nonsense

(ABC)

New Year's Day 2025 greeted Americans with several harsh lessons, mainly that we are vulnerable to domestic-terror operations from one end of the country to the other. Authorities tell us that the violence and horror might not be over. Oddly, the attacks yesterday appeared to be sending messages regarding U.S. political figures, particularly about President-Elect Donald Trump and "First Buddy" Elon Musk.

Speaking of Trump, his public statements about the New Orleans attack were a disjointed and inaccurate mess that had to be corrected by the press, including Fox News. That might be the most disarming event of the day, given that the United States now appears to have a President-Elect who cannot be trusted to speak truthfully to the American people at a time of emergency -- and he won't even take office for another 18 days. Fortunately, Joe Biden is filling out the final days of his term, and his was a voice of trust and authority at a time when America badly need one -- and all Trump could do was sow confusion.

The toll, at this writing, is 16 dead (15 in New Orleans; one in Las Vegas) and an inexact number of injuries (dozens in New Orleans and seven in Las Vegas). An apparent terror operation appears to have been foiled near Norfolk, Virginia. 

The most devastating attack, so far, came when Shamsud-Din Jabbar, 42 of Texas -- who was born in the United States and served in the U.S. Army -- drove a truck onto a Bourbon Street sidewalk filled with New Year's revelers. Security cameras caught at least four other individuals -- three men and a woman -- planting explosive devices in the French Quarter. That prompted authorities to say Jabbar likely did not act alone, and more such attacks could be coming. Jabbar was killed in a gun battle with police, but video recordings captured him saying he had become a member of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and apparently was inspired by ISIS.

Earlier in the day came reports of the FBI seizing homemade explosives at a home in Norfolk, VA. From a report at the Associated Press:

Federal agents found one of the largest stockpiles of homemade explosives they have ever seized when they arrested a Virginia man on a firearms charge last month, according to a court filing by federal prosecutors.

Investigators seized more than 150 pipe bombs and other homemade devices when they searched the home of Brad Spafford northwest of Norfolk in December, the prosecutors said in a motion filed Monday. The prosecutors wrote that this is believed to be “the largest seizure by number of finished explosive devices in FBI history.”

Most of the bombs were found in a detached garage at the home in Isle of Wight County, along with tools and bomb-making materials including fuses and pieces of plastic pipe, according to court documents. The prosecutors also wrote: “Several additional apparent pipe bombs were found in a backpack in the home’s bedroom, completely unsecured,” in the home he shares with his wife and two young children.

Spafford, 36, was charged with possession of a firearm in violation of the National Firearms Act. Law enforcement officers allege he owned an unregistered short barrel rifle. Prosecutors said that he faces “numerous additional potential charges” related to the explosives.

The investigation began in 2023 when an informant told authorities that Spafford was stockpiling weapons and ammunition, according to court documents. The informant, a friend, told authorities Spafford had disfigured his hand in 2021 while working on homemade explosives. Prosecutors said he only has two fingers on his right hand. The informant told authorities that Spafford was using pictures of the president, an apparent reference to President Joe Biden, for target practice and that “he believed political assassinations should be brought back,” prosecutors wrote.

That was the first sign that politics would be part of the day's events on Monday. But it would not be the last such sign. Near the end of the day, a Tesla Cybertruck filled with explosives burst into flames near the entrance to a Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. Given that the truck was a product of an Elon Musk company and the blast occurred at a Trump hotel, speculation soon surfaced that the explosion was tied to the political figures -- perhaps as a crude message designed to instill fear or confusion. From an AP report about the Las Vegas blast:

The person who died when a Tesla Cybertruck packed with explosives burst into flames outside President-elect Donald Trump’s Las Vegas hotel was a highly decorated U.S. Army Green Beret who deployed twice to Afghanistan, officials said Thursday.

Two law enforcement officials identified the man inside the futuristic-looking pickup truck as Matthew Livelsberger. The officials spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation.

Livelsberger served in the Green Berets, highly trained special forces who work to counter terrorism abroad and train partners, the Army said in a statement. He had served in the Army since 2006, rising through the ranks with a long career of overseas assignments, deploying twice to Afghanistan and serving in Ukraine, Tajikistan, Georgia and Congo, the Army said. He was awarded two Bronze Stars, including one with a valor device for courage under fire, a combat infantry badge and an Army Commendation Medal with valor. Livelsberger was on approved leave when he died, according to the statement.

The explosion of the truck, packed with firework mortars and camp fuel canisters, came hours after 42-year-old Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar rammed a truck into a crowd in New Orleans’ famed French Quarter early on New Year’s Day, killing at least 15 people before being shot to death by police. That crash was being investigated as a terrorist attack and police believe the driver was not acting alone.

Both Livelsberger and Jabbar spent time at the base formerly known as Fort Bragg, a massive Army base in North Carolina that is home to multiple Army special operations units. However, one of the officials who spoke to the AP said there is no overlap in their assignments at the base, now called Fort Liberty. 

The FBI said Thursday in a post on X that it was “conducting law enforcement activity” at a home in Colorado Springs related to Wednesday’s explosion but provided no other details.

The explosion of the truck, packed with firework mortars and camp fuel canisters, came hours after 42-year-old Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar rammed a truck into a crowd in New Orleans’ famed French Quarter early on New Year’s Day, killing at least 15 people before being shot to death by police. That crash was being investigated as a terrorist attack and police believe the driver was not acting alone.

Both Livelsberger and Jabbar spent time at the base formerly known as Fort Bragg, a massive Army base in North Carolina that is home to multiple Army special operations units. However, one of the officials who spoke to the AP said there is no overlap in their assignments at the base, now called Fort Liberty.

Both Livelsberger and Jabbar spent time at the base formerly known as Fort Bragg, a massive Army base in North Carolina that is home to multiple Army special operations units. However, one of the officials who spoke to the AP said there is no overlap in their assignments at the base, now called Fort Liberty.

Chris Raia, FBI deputy assistant director, said Thursday that officials have found ‘no definitive link’ between the New Orleans attack and the truck explosion in Las Vegas.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said Wednesday afternoon on X that “we have now confirmed that the explosion was caused by very large fireworks and/or a bomb carried in the bed of the rented Cybertruck and is unrelated to the vehicle itself.”

“All vehicle telemetry was positive at the time of the explosion,” Musk wrote.

From a BBC report on the Las Vegas explosion:

Sheriff Kevin McMahill showed reporters dramatic footage of the explosion and photos of the aftermath, including several fuel canisters along with large fireworks in the truck bed.

Footage showed the truck parked directly in front of the entrance of the hotel. The truck sits idle for several seconds before exploding - bursts of multi-coloured fireworks shooting in multiple directions. 

Mr McMahill, of the Las Vegas Police Department, said authorities were examining whether the incident could be connected to the one in New Orleans, where improvised explosive devices were found near the scene.

He said they were also investigating whether it might be linked to President-Elect Donald Trump, who owns the hotel, or Elon Musk, who owns Tesla.

"Obviously, a Cybertruck, the Trump Hotel, there's lots of questions that we have to answer as we move forward," he said.

(YouTube)