President Trump has nominated a conservative Florida judge to serve as a federal prosecutor in the state - as the president pursues a sweeping overhaul of the "weaponized" Justice Department.
The president picked Florida state judge Jason Reding Quiñones to oversee the Southern District of Florida, which covers Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach.
It's routine for new presidents to replace U.S. attorneys appointed by their predecessors. Trump said Quiñones would help the president's mission to "make America safe again" as Trump pushes the DOJ to take a tough stance on crime and illegal immigration.
Currently, Quinones is a state court trial judge overseeing domestic violence cases. He also has experience working in the Southern District as an assistant U.S. attorney, as well as experience in the National Security Division at the Justice Department as a military and federal prosecutor, according to the Federalist Society.
The former Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG) continues to serve as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. In a post on X, Trump highlighted Quiñones' experience as a judge and prosecutor.
"It is my honor to nominate Judge Jason Reding Quiñones as the next United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. A former Federal prosecutor and Justice Department National Security Official, Judge Reding Quiñones currently serves as a highly respected State Trial Judge in Miami, and a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force Reserve," Trump wrote.
"As the next U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Reding Quiñones will restore Law and Order, prosecute violent crimes and, MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN. Congratulations Jason!"
Trump's pick was lauded by prominent conservative lawyer Mike Davis, founder of the Article III project.
Davis said Quiñones would "end the weaponization of law enforcement" and refocus the Southern District on stopping "real crimes that affect real Americans--like violent crimes and migrant crimes."
Judge Jason Reding Quiñones, my good friend, is the perfect pick by President Trump to serve as his United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
Jason will end the weaponization of law enforcement, hold accountable those who violated the constitutional rights of… pic.twitter.com/omSkMHQPpx
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) February 16, 2025
Quiñones moderated a Federalist Society panel discussion on "lawfare" earlier this month.
Under Biden, the DOJ led a pair of unprecedented prosecutions into Trump, Biden's chief political rival. One of the since-dropped cases, which involved classified documents, was brought against Trump in Florida's Southern District by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Hayden O’Byrne, Trump's interim U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida since January, moved to drop the criminal charges against Trump's co-defendants after Smith resigned and transferred the case to the U.S. Attorney's office. A federal court last week granted O'Byrne's request to dismiss the charges against Trump aide Walt Nauta and former Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira.
Meanwhile, the DOJ has fired career prosecutors based in Miami who assisted on Smith's documents case - part of a wider purge of DOJ officials who targeted Trump and his supporters.
“You played a significant role in prosecuting President Trump,” acting attorney general letter James McHenry wrote in a letter. “The proper functioning of government critically depends on the trust superior officials place in their subordinates. Given your significant role in prosecuting the president, I do not believe that the leadership of the department can trust you to assist in implementing the president’s agenda faithfully.”
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge who ruled against President Donald Trump's announced freeze on federal spending has been found by a legal organization to be an executive of an organization that has taken millions of those federal dollars, meaning the judge, in his ruling, chose to stop a program that could reduce funding for an organization for which he's been a board member or executive for years.
The problem is for John McConnell, the Rhode Island judge who stopped Trump's temporary spending freeze, a move announced so that expenditures and handouts could be evaluated as part of Trump's agenda to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse in the federal government.
Trump set up the executive Department of Government Efficiency and tasked Elon Musk with that chore to fulfill his campaign promise, which voters endorsed, to cut federal spending and eliminate those problems, even identifying individuals who may be taking advantage of the system.
The report is from America First Legal, which posted an extended series of statements on social media explaining its findings.
The report explains over the 18 Years McConnell has been on the board of Crossroads Rhode Island, that group has taken some $128 million in government funding.
"When Judge McConnell ruled against the Trump administration and required federal taxpayers to continue funding the state of Rhode Island, it seems that he also required continued funding for his pet 'non-profit,' Crossroads Rhode Island," the report said.
That organization has been getting funding from the state, through which federal dollars for various projects flow.
The report said McConnell previously was the chairman of the board of that group, and currently is listed as chair emeritus.
"In fact, Judge McConnell has appeared as a director on Crossroads' IRS Form 990 every year since he took the federal bench in 2013," the report said.
The AFL report explained, "It is common practice for the federal government to disburse money to the states, which then hand it out to NGOs like Crossroads Rhode Island. Here, Judge McConnell ordered taxpayer dollars to continue flowing to the states, including Rhode Island… USA Spending shows that in the past 15 years, 155 federal grants to Rhode Island state and local governments list Crossroads Rhode Island as a sub-awardee. In FY2023 alone, the organization's audit shows that more than $10 million in federal funding flowed through Rhode Island."
The social media thread also points out, "Federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 455, requires judges to disqualify themselves 'in any proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The law further requires judges to disqualify themselves when they are a fiduciary or have any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.'"
Directors of nonprofits have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the organization, under Rhode Island law, and, "Given the heightened public scrutiny of this case and the profound constitutional implications inherent in binding the actions of the president of the United States, the appearance of a conflict of interest is highly problematic, to say the least," the report said.
AFL said McConnell "must recuse himself immediately."
And a report at Clash Daily said, "The problem with judge-shopping to push your case through, there's always the chance that the judges you are counting on to push your agenda have their own skin in the game. That's the case with a judge who has offered very dubious rulings on whether Trump can suspend his USAID money. We've got a thread from America First Legal making the case online that Judge McConnell, the Rhode Island judge who put an end to Trump's spending freezes, ought never to have heard that case in the first place."
The report explained if Trump is successful freezing spending, that funding for McConnell's group also gets cut.
Suchir Balaji, a 26-year-old former OpenAI employee and known whistleblower, died under troubling circumstances, drawing widespread public attention.
Balaji was found dead on November 26 in his San Francisco apartment, with the official cause of death ruled as a suicide by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, according to the Daily Mail. Despite this official finding, Balaji’s parents dispute the ruling, suspecting foul play to be the real cause behind their son's untimely death.
Balaji’s death has ignited significant debate, with his parents challenging the official ruling and seeking further investigation into the circumstances surrounding his demise.
The sequence of events started when Balaji was discovered near the bathroom doorway of his apartment.
Blood covered a significant part of the scene, marking the site of the tragic incident. In a quick conclusion by the San Francisco Medical Examiner, his death was classified as a suicide, attributing the cause to a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.
However, Balaji's family, notably his parents Poornima Ramarao and Balaji Ramamurthy, strongly refute this determination. They have taken steps to contest the ruling by engaging Joseph Cohen, a forensic expert, to conduct a second autopsy. Adding to their concern, security footage prior to the incident confirmed that Balaji was alone in his apartment, corroborating the absence of an intruder.
The initial autopsy report painted a grim picture. Balaji had multiple drugs in his system at the time of his death. Moreover, the trajectory of the bullet was deemed atypical for suicides. It entered through his forehead at a downward angle, raising family suspicions.
Further investigation revealed the presence of his firearm next to his body, which tested positive for gunshot residue on his hands and his DNA on the weapon. These findings were put under scrutiny as the family pointed to potential inconsistencies suggestive of foul play.
Balaji's parents expressed their discontent with the police investigation, citing a too-swift 40-minute ruling of suicide as evidence of insufficient scrutiny. They pointed to evidence of a possible struggle and a ransacked apartment, positing the theory of an attack rather than self-harm.
His father voiced his skepticism to DailyMail.com, questioning the feasibility of a suicide scenario given the extensive blood stains and absence of suicide-related behaviors in his son's history. "There's no depression," his father revealed, painting a picture of a young man living a financially stable and socially active life.
Compounding the mystery is Balaji’s mother's assertion that his death brought up suspicions as to who might benefit from such a tragedy. She expressed her determination to seek justice, emphasizing the need for a deeper investigation.
Adding a layer of intrigue was Balaji's contentious relationship with OpenAI. A tech prodigy, Balaji was responsible for whistleblowing on OpenAI's ChatGPT training methods, which had gained media traction a month before his death. This background fueled conspiracy theories, as his death coincided with his significant allegations against a major tech player.
Amid these tensions, OpenAI released a statement acknowledging his contributions and expressing sorrow over his passing. However, this has done little to quell public speculation and the quest for truth pursued by Balaji's family.
Public interest in the case has escalated, driven by social media platforms and voices from notable figures. The intertwined narrative of potential corporate malfeasance and a young man's death captivated audiences worldwide.
The Texas Supreme Court recently decided to dismiss an ethics complaint against Attorney General Ken Paxton, closing a chapter on a significant legal dispute.
The high court's ruling resulted in the vacating of an earlier appeals court decision that allowed the ethics case to proceed against Paxton, the Dallas Morning News reported.
This decision marked the end of a dispute that originated with a lawsuit brought by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline. They alleged that Paxton and a deputy, First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster, engaged in unethical conduct following the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The allegations surrounded a petition filed with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results.
The lawsuit was based on actions taken in 2020 when Paxton and Webster filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. This petition questioned the electoral outcomes in several states, including Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The aim was to challenge President Joe Biden's reported victories on grounds of alleged irregularities in the voting process.
The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately dismissed this petition. Allegations against the two claimed their legal actions included dishonest claims about unlawful voting practices and suspected election result manipulations involving Dominion voting machines.
Initially, the state bar's Commission for Lawyer Discipline sought to address these allegations through a formal lawsuit. The aim was to potentially impose disciplinary measures against Paxton and Webster.
In a significant twist, last month, the Commission requested to drop the lawsuit, seeking its dismissal. This move paved the way for the Texas Supreme Court to step in and close the case with its recent ruling.
Adding another layer, the state Supreme Court had previously issued a ruling that protected Webster against similar charges. This decision stemmed from an opinion that concluded that such professional discipline was unwarranted under Texas law for Webster's actions in filing the initial pleadings.
An unsigned opinion from the court elaborated on this stance, drawing parallels between Webster's case and the one involving Paxton. The opinion emphasized that their previous judgment about Webster bore significant weight on the current proceedings.
In January, Paxton decided to challenge a decision by the 5th Court of Appeals, which was based in Dallas. That decision had been unfavorable to Paxton, as it ruled in favor of continuing the lawsuit against him.
Arguing the case’s broader implications, Paxton requested that the Supreme Court vacate the appeals court's ruling. He emphasized the substantial potential precedential impact such a decision could have on future cases.
The Supreme Court's agreement to vacate underscored its recognition of the broader issues at play, which extended beyond this particular case.
The court’s detailed opinion stated, “The issue is decided is ‘potentially of consequence’ far beyond the circumstances of this single case.” This sentiment reflects the court’s acknowledgment of the significant legal principles involved.
By vacating the appeals court’s ruling, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the continuation of legal actions against Paxton related to this ethics complaint. This resolved a contentious issue that had persisted for a significant period within Texas political and legal circles.
The Department of Justice saw a notable change after Attorney General Pam Bondi removed large framed photos of Democratic leaders, including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Merrick Garland, from its walls. This move came shortly after President Donald Trump's landslide victory in the 2024 election, marking a significant moment in the political landscape.
Attorney General Pam Bondi's removal of Democratic leaders' portraits from the DOJ comes in response to President Trump's 2024 election victory, according to Breitbart.
Just three weeks into Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, Bondi noticed these photos still prominent in one section of the Justice Department. She decided to take action herself by removing them. This task was personally undertaken by Bondi, highlighting a shift in leadership within the department.
The images had been installed by employees from the previous administration, a fact that Bondi seemed eager to address. Her decision to remove them underscores the changing political direction under Trump's leadership. The swiftness of Bondi’s action reflects the new administration's commitment to distancing itself from the previous Democratic leadership.
Miranda Devine, commenting on social media platform X, drew attention to Bondi's actions. She expressed disbelief that Biden, Harris, and Garland's images were still displayed prominently three weeks after Trump's inauguration. Devine termed this as "ridiculous," capturing the sentiments of others aligned with the new political leadership.
Devine elaborated on the scenario in a subsequent message. She shared how Bondi took it upon herself to remove the portraits. Describing Bondi's dismantling of the photos, Devine noted that they were stacked in a corner, suggesting their relocation was not just a rearrangement, but possibly permanent.
This act by the Attorney General is seen as part of the broader transition under Donald Trump’s administration. The election that brought him back into office has been widely described as a historic comeback, which itself emphasizes the shift in mood within the government. By physically removing the photos, Bondi was symbolically reinforcing this transition.
While the photos’ removal is a singular event, its implications resonate within the political realm. It reflects the practical and symbolic changes expected as Trump reasserts his influence. The decision mirrors broader efforts by the Trump administration to redefine its stance and establish its agenda.
The Justice Department, as one of the key institutions, sees a rejuvenated leadership style under Trump. Bondi’s actions signify the administration's determination to leave a clear and present mark on every aspect of governance. The move essentially marks a turning of the page from the previous leadership.
For employees and officials within the DoJ, Bondi's proactive approach likely signals the beginning of an era characterized by robust alignment with Trump’s policies and vision. This change may also affect the department’s internal culture, signaling an expectation for cohesion with the new leadership’s objectives.
Bondi’s decision to personally oversee the removal exemplifies her hands-on leadership style. It serves as a reminder of the administrative changes taking place across the board. Political observers might see this as a step in aligning the department’s optics with the prevailing executive leadership.
As the Trump administration settles in, such actions may become a common reflection of broader administrative reforms. Every such move contributes to coloring the administrative corridors with reminders of the evolving political narrative.
The rapid transition in leadership also encodes a clear message to department employees about the expectations moving forward. Adjustments such as these are emblematic of the overarching transformative phase within top U.S. political offices.
Reflecting on the events, observers note the importance of public perception and morale within departments during such shifts. Actions such as Bondi’s ensure alignment not just in policy but also in the symbolic displays that communicate leadership and legacy.
In summary, Bondi’s removal of the leadership portraits signifies the broader implications of Trump’s return, serving both as a literal and figurative cleaning of the slate. This action represents a decisive moment marking the beginning of the next chapter in this historic political era.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has been handed a huge victory in his lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board, which awarded honors to publications based on their coverage of what turned out to be a made-up conspiracy theory, and then its refusal to rescind them.
RedState said the victory comes from an appellate court decision in Florida that unanimously affirmed a trial court's decision to keep the case alive.
The Pulitzer Board had demanded that the case, brought by Trump in 2022 over the panel's stunning awards to the New York Times and Washington Post for their "Russia collusion" stories, which all explained claims that Trump's 2020 campaign colluded with Russia, be dismissed.
That theory, at the time, was supported by no evidence. In fact, it was a political spin created by his opponent during that election, the Democrat party and others.
Judge Ed Artau explained that not only did the trial court have jurisdiction over the defendants, the statements at the heart of the claim are actionable.
"Artau notes that numerous entities had squashed the Russia collusion narrative. But the Pulitzer Prize Board, in defiantly issuing a statement refusing to rescind the awards for reporting based more on fantasy than reality, further pushed the assertion of collusion," the report explained.
"As noted in the President's complaint, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General William Barr, the House of Representatives' Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the United States Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence all concluded 'there was no evidence of collusion between President Trump, the Trump Campaign, and Russia,'" Artau explained. 'In other words, as the President asserts, '[t]he Russia Collusion Hoax was dead, at least until Defendants [as members of the Pulitzer Prize board] attempted to resurrect it' by conspiring to publish a defamatory statement falsely implying that the President colluded with the Russians."
The ruling knocked down the board's claim their statements were opinion, "The board members vouched for the truth of reporting that had been debunked by all credible sources charged with investigating the false claim that the President colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election."
At issue now will be whether the defendants "acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth."
Trump lawyer Quincy Bird said, "Today's ruling is an unequivocal victory for President Trump in his pursuit of justice against the Pulitzer Prize board members for their dishonest and defamatory conduct. President Trump is committed to holding those who traffic in fake news, lies, and smears to account, and he looks forward to seeing his powerful cases through to a just conclusion."
In fact, now in the White House, Trump has instructed his press secretary to call out lies pushed by the media, and she already has done so several times, publicly humiliating various agencies.
The Washington Post eventually corrected a bunch of its reports."
The lawsuit charges that the awards essentially rewarded publications "for lying to the American public."
Among the board's wild claims included that the Times and Post had "deeply resourced" and "relentlessly reported" on the "Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connection to the Trump campaign."
However, real sourcing and real relentless reporting confirmed there were no connections.
Even after the conspiracy theory was debunked, the Pulitzer board claimed none of the articles was "discredited by the facts that emerged…"
The reports were mostly based on the Steele dossier, which was an opposition-research fabrication created with the funding of the Democrats, including 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton.
Axios described the scenario as "one of the most egregious journalistic errors in modern history."
Trump recently secured a settlement in a lawsuit against ABC, and a jury found CNN liable for defamation for its own false report.
A separate action against "60 Minutes' remains pending.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asserted the high court's power against challenges from President Donald Trump and his allies, The Hill reported. Although she didn't mention the president by name, the judge said that there were safeguards against turning the nation into a "monarchy."
Sotomayor made her remarks during a fireside chat with Knight Foundation CEO Maribel Pérez Wadsworth this week. The Obama-appointed justice was careful not to mention Trump.
However, her remarks come as the Trump administration pushed back on federal judges who have granted temporary injunctions against some of his executive orders. Sotomayor noted that the judiciary has "soft power" over laws in the U.S. even as Congress makes the laws.
"Our founders were hell-bent on ensuring that we didn’t have a monarchy. And the first way they thought of that was to give Congress the power of the purse, and because that’s an incredible power," Sotomayor claimed at the event in Miami Dade College in Florida.
According to the Washington Post, several of Trump's executive orders have been put on hold due to actions in federal courts. Trump's ban on birthright citizenship, his dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development, and other initiatives have been halted thanks to the judiciary.
Other edicts about allowing for transgender military members and banning transition for minors remain in limbo while the judges decide. About the only thing Trump has been granted is the buyout of federal employees.
There have been some questions about whether Trump will regard the court's decisions. From her remarks, it's clear that Sotomayor was making a point about the court's power over Trump.
"Court decisions stand. Whether one particular person chooses to abide by them or not, it doesn’t change the foundation that it’s still a court order that someone will respect at some point," the justice claimed.
"That’s the faith I have in this system. And that other actors in the system, whether it’s Congress or others, will follow the law, because it’s what we all take an oath of office to do," Sotomayor added.
Sotomayor and others insist on the judiciary's power, but the courts do not have absolute authority. Vice President J.D. Vance articulated the limits in a post to X, formerly Twitter, Sunday.
"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal," Vance wrote.
"Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," Vance concluded. If the judiciary is getting over its skis, these issues will need to be hashed out even while the Democrats cry foul.
If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.
If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal.
Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 9, 2025
The tension between the executive and judicial branches of government was the intention of the founding of the government to ensure checks and balances. However, the fight will likely become particularly ruthless because of those who are intent on stopping Trump. He's ready for it.
A federal judge has ordered President Trump to restore government web pages that were taken down in the president's purge of gender ideology.
The ruling from Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, is the latest example of courts micromanaging the White House to block Trump's "common sense" agenda.
Bates commanded the White House to bring back public web pages that were taken down after Trump signed an executive order declaring there are only two sexes. A left-wing nonprofit, Doctors for America, sued over Trump's changes, while condemning his executive order as "medically inaccurate" and rooted in "transphobia."
Doctors for America champions "access to affordable care, community health and prevention, and health justice and equity." The advocacy group supported Barack Obama when he was running for president.
Consistent with Trump's executive order on gender ideology, the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) ordered all federal agencies to remove references to gender ideology from their public-facing websites. Health agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed certain web pages to comply with Trump's directive.
Some of the deleted information covered topics like HIV prevention and the mental health of high school students, particularly young people with gender dysphoria. Doctors for America sued, arguing the administration arbitrarily deprived doctors and researchers of critical health information in violation of federal laws.
The organization submitted declarations from two doctors who said they relied on CDC data to treat sexually transmitted infections. One doctor who works at a clinic serving "predominately low-income immigrant families in southwest Chicago" said she would have used the CDC's information to monitor a recent chlamydia outbreak at a local high school.
"These doctors’ time and effort are valuable, scarce resources, and being forced to spend them elsewhere makes their jobs harder and their treatment less effective," Doctors for America said.
The judge agreed that the administration's actions are "arbitrary and capricious" and would result in "irreparable harm."
"Finally, it bears emphasizing who ultimately bears the harm of defendants’ actions: everyday Americans, and most acutely, underprivileged Americans, seeking healthcare," Bates wrote.
The Justice Department argued that the inconvenience of looking up alternative sources of information does not meet the legal standard of "irreparable harm," and the data that was removed is still accessible through internet archives.
"A potential impingement upon the President’s Article II authority over the operations of the Executive Branch is always grounds for caution," the DOJ wrote.
The ruling is the latest example of federal judges pushing back on Trump's efforts to rein in a bloated, politicized federal bureaucracy. Trump and his allies have accused the courts of overreach, with Elon Musk blasting Bates' ruling as "absurd."
"Truly absurd. Judges as website editors!?" Musk wrote. "We should at least ATTEMPT to fire this junky jurist. The notion of having a judge job for life, no matter how bad the judgments, is ridiculous! Enough is enough.
Truly absurd. Judges as website editors!?
We should at least ATTEMPT to fire this junky jurist.
The notion of having a judge job for life, no matter how bad the judgments, is ridiculous!
Enough is enough. https://t.co/lMPq6zWOj5
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 11, 2025
Royal watcher Helena Chard says disgraced Prince Andrew is "petrified" of returning to New York, Fox News reported. The British broadcaster and photographer said Andrew's previous connection with the late Jeffery Epstein, who was a convicted sex offender on a grand scale, has him on edge as public curiosity about the case persists.
With President Donald Trump in office, the public is once again calling for answers over Epstein and his infamous client list that has yet to be released or even leaked. However, the 64-year-old royal was one of the few already implicated by name in legal proceedings.
Chard said Andrew, a formerly avid traveler, refuses to enter the U.S. now that the pressure is on for the FBI to reexamine the evidence. "Prince Andrew is petrified of even thinking of returning to New York," Chard told Fox News.
"He is very much rooted to his home, Royal Lodge, and isn't moving any time soon," she added. The Duke of York has left Britain exactly once in the last half-dozen years.
Epstein was a convicted sex offender awaiting his trial for sex trafficking charges when he committed suicide in prison. One of the victims who sued Epstein, Virginia Giuffre, pointed the finger at Prince Andrew as well.
Since that information became public, Andrew lost the backing of Buckingham Palace and became an albatross around the royal family's neck. Andrew's brother, King Charles, recently asked him to downsize to the Frogmore Cottage to cut costs after already scaling back on his lavish lifestyle.
This happened even after Queen Elizabeth II asked Charles to take care of Andrew, who was her favorite son, after she died. However, it appears Chrales has no tolerance for "Randy Andy" and his previous antics, especially now that he's a financial draw on the family.
"Gone are the comfy days of feeling self-assured and having yes people circling him. The fresh scandals, accusations, public controversies and negative media surrounding Andrew have led to him feeling very alone," Chard went on.
"No one wants association with inappropriate Andrew," she said, adding that he's "very much on his own" these days. "He’s ruminating and fearful that further legal scrutiny over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein will lead to a public, humiliating arrest," Chard added.
Like many others, Chard has no sympathy for Andrew's plight. "Smug Prince Andrew has brought everything upon himself," Chard said.
"His lies have tripped him up and there is no escaping the public animosity towards him. He is guilty in the court of public opinion and has no choice but to keep his nose clean and head down. However, I'm sure he is on tenterhooks wondering what self-induced controversy will rear its head next," Chard added.
Further complicating matters is Andrew's actions since then. "He originally said he would help the FBI, although this was years ago," Chard noted. There's also evidence that Andrew lied about continuing his relationship with Epstein beyond 2010 despite previous denials about an ongoing association.
"There is so much hostility towards Prince Andrew, it would seem unwise to travel to New York… Many people also feel that Prince Andrew… should be held accountable by the monarchy," Chard said.
Andrew was allegedly involved in the exploitation of Giurffe, who was then 17 years old. If he's at all guilty, he deserves everything that's happening to him right now and what's surely to come when Epstein's abusers are brought to justice.
The Supreme Court of Israel has rejected a petition that sought to block the appointment of the court's new liberal president, seemingly ending a months-long battle over the seat.
The top court ruled that Justice Isaac Amit was properly vetted after right-wing groups complained about conflicts of interest.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin, an ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, led a 16-month blockade against Amit's appointment.
As the controversy flared, the top court considered holding Levin in contempt for refusing to make an appointment, but the Supreme Court ultimately set a January 16 deadline.
Amit was finally elected on January 26 after the court granted a 10-day extension to consider reports that the judge had interests in cases he weighed on.
For instance, Amit did not report his involvement in legal proceedings concerning a building he owns in Tel Aviv with his brother. Amit dismissed the claims as a "smear campaign" and said he gave his brother full legal stewardship of the property.
Amit's election as the court's permanent president led to howls of protest from Levin and others who called it a sham process. While Amit was next in line based on seniority, Levin said other judges of similar rank were passed over for less serious concerns.
"I hereby state unequivocally that I do not recognize Justice Isaac Amit as the President of the Supreme Court, and the procedures through which he was 'elected' are fundamentally flawed and illegal," Levin wrote.
The Supreme Court rejected a petition Sunday from right-wing groups that claimed Amit was elected "hastily" and without a thorough review of his alleged conflicts of interest.
The top court determined that the Judicial Selection Committee had all the information it needed to make a proper decision, while noting the committee is "the only body authorized to discuss reservations regarding candidates for the position of Supreme Court president."
Levin, who is chair of the selection committee, has argued the "flawed" process that elected Amit turned the panel into a "rubber stamp."
The President of Israel appoints judges of the Supreme Court, and nominations are made by the Judicial Selection Committee.
Levin, and others on Israel's right, have accused the Supreme Court of judicial overreach favoring the left. In 2023, Levin led a failed attempt to reform the judicial system that sparked furious backlash throughout Israel.
Amit will be sworn in next week, but neither Levin, nor Prime Minister Netanyahu, will attend.