The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled to uphold a federal law requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok's U.S. operations, countering President-elect Donald Trump's stance on keeping the app accessible.
The decision, coming just before the divestiture deadline, raises the possibility of a nationwide TikTok ban in the United States if a resolution is not reached, Newsweek reported.
This recent decision by the Supreme Court was issued as part of a broader context involving the app TikTok and its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. Legislators have mandated a divestiture of TikTok’s U.S. branch due to national security concerns over its data practices.
Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden, the deadline for this sale is January 19, 2025. President-elect Trump, on the other hand, has expressed his intention to keep TikTok operating within the country, potentially by extending the deadline if negotiations are progressing.
An interesting twist in the ongoing saga is the Supreme Court's composition. Despite its 6-3 conservative majority, the justices unanimously sided against President-elect Trump’s preference to maintain TikTok as operational without changes. The ruling notably follows a prior court decision denying Trump's attempt to delay his criminal sentencing.
Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett notably diverged from their conservative peers in the former case, highlighting an independent judicial check on executive influence.
In providing a rationale for their decision on TikTok, the justices declared that the sale is essential for mitigating well-founded national security issues concerning the app’s relationship with a foreign competitor. This ruling aligns with a law aimed at transferring TikTok's ownership to American hands. Should ByteDance fail to comply by the stipulated deadline, TikTok is to cease operations in the United States.
Meanwhile, ByteDance has shown little sign of wishing to divest. Without an agreement and with the deadline looming, TikTok has indicated plans to suspend its service in the U.S. as early as Sunday. Preparations are also underway to remove the app from major app stores, including Apple and Google, redirecting users to an informational site on the ban and offering them options to retrieve personal data.
As the status of TikTok remains tenuous, Trump has taken to social media to voice his thoughts on the court's decision. He acknowledged the expected nature of the Supreme Court’s ruling and noted his need for more time to study the situation thoroughly before making a final decision on TikTok.
Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson from Trump's camp, emphasized the president-elect’s negotiating prowess in this high-stakes situation. Mike Waltz, another supporter of Trump, expressed a dual perspective, recognizing TikTok’s appeal and value to Trump’s campaign but also underscoring the importance of safeguarding user data.
Interestingly, Trump's other legal struggles carry over into this arena. He is currently vying with several felony charges tied to falsifying business records, accusations he has vehemently denied as politically motivated. The Supreme Court’s rulings, both in TikTok's case and concerning his sentencing, have prompted speculation about potential shifts in the Court’s ideological alignment during a subsequent Trump term, in which additional conservative justice slots might emerge.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling requiring TikTok's divestiture, individuals from varying political quarters have voiced differing opinions. A White House spokesperson maintained that TikTok should persist but under U.S. control, remarking on the timing of the requirement’s enactment just before a transition of administrations.
On the other hand, some comments took a sharper tone. For instance, political strategist Steve Bannon criticized Justice Barrett, labeling her decision a disgrace, which illustrates the ongoing tensions surrounding court rulings that defy expected partisan lines.
As the narrative unfolds, questions arise about how TikTok will navigate this crisis and how Trump will act with respect to the app's fate, balancing national interests with his personal and political considerations. The developments around TikTok represent a significant front in U.S.-China technological and strategic interfacing, with broader implications for international digital economics and privacy practices.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Rep. James Comer, the head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has dispatched a letter to President-elect Donald Trump's attorney general nominee, Pamela Bondi, suggesting that the Department of Justice over the coming few years could hold James Biden, Joe Biden's brother, accountable for his lies.
The request comes out of the House investigation into the influence-peddling operations of the Biden family over the years Joe Biden was vice president and then president.
It was earlier reported that the family took in tens of millions of dollars through the scheming.
Hunter Biden, of course, cannot be prosecuted because his father handed him a free pass for all crimes committed over the last 11 years. However, Joe Biden has not yet given his brother the same presidential pardon protections, although he still could while he is in office for a few days.
Comer's letter to Bondi pointed out that Joe Biden obstructed the congressional investigation, and that the statements from James Biden to Congress weren't the truth.
He said, "President Biden's obstruction of the Committees' impeachment inquiry is itself impeachable conduct. The legacy President Biden leaves behind is having led the most dishonest and corrupt administration in American history. President Biden repeatedly told—or used White House personnel to tell—the American people he would not pardon his son. That was a lie.
"President Biden continues to lie, now falsely claiming '[n]o reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong.' In fact, a unanimous jury of Hunter Biden's peers in Delaware found him guilty on all counts, and in California Hunter Biden pled guilty to felony charges.
"Though President Biden's saccharine (and wholly ironic) rantings of political persecution and weaponized prosecution of Hunter Biden are specious, they are inapplicable to the non-prosecution of his brother, James Biden, who has lied to the United States Congress and has faced no accountability to date. I write to encourage the Department under your leadership to hold James Biden accountable for lying to Congress to protect his brother, the soon-to-be former President Biden. No one should be above the law, regardless of his last name."
Just the News reported that the committee previously referred James Biden to the DOJ, but the Democrats running the department now have done nothing with potential charges.
Comer pointedly noted Joe Biden's grant of special privileges to Hunter Biden through the pardon.
"However, I write to remind incoming Department of Justice leadership of Hunter Biden's main accomplice in his influence-peddling schemes (aside from Joe Biden himself), whom the House Committees on Oversight, the Judiciary, and Ways and Means (the Committees) previously identified to Attorney General Merrick Garland as having misled Congress regarding Joe Biden's participation in his family's influence peddling and deserving of prosecution under federal law: James Biden, the President's younger brother."
In fact, House members had referred both Hunter and James Biden to the DOJ for criminal prosecution, charging them with lying to Congress.
"The committee argued that James Biden lied in his deposition when he claimed he did not meet with Hunter Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski while the group pursued a deal with CEFC China Energy, one of the Chinese companies with connections to the Chinese Communist Party at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Hunter Biden contradicted his uncle's statements in his own testimony, claiming James Biden was present at a meeting with him and Bobulinski," the report said.
Comer explained, "Throughout the 118th Congress, the committees investigated the president's role in and knowledge of his family's international influence peddling schemes that have generated over $18 million for Biden family members and their related companies, and over $27 million when including the payments to their business associates, who often were used to transfer funds to Biden family members.
"This figure does not include an additional $8 million in loans given to Hunter Biden and James Biden—most of which has likely not been repaid. In total, since 2014, the committees accounted for over $35 million received by Biden family members, their companies, and business associates, which includes financial transactions described as loans. Despite much effort, the committees have not identified legitimate services warranting such lucrative payments. The fact that the timeframe covered by President Biden's sweeping pardon of his son aligns with this corrupt influence peddling scheme underscores that the entirety of President Biden and his family's corruption was not captured by the limited criminal charges brought by the Department under Attorney General Garland's leadership. "
A federal appeals court struck down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration policy that included amnesty for illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, Just the News reported. The decision imperils the pet program of President Barack Obama
A lower court had already deemed that DACA was unconstitutional. The decision Friday at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a majority of its findings.
Notably, the Fifth Circuit upheld U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen's September 2023 decision that applied only to Texas. It was the only state that presented "sufficient evidence that DACA has caused the harms it alleges and that those costs would be partially alleviated if DACA were enjoined."
The Lone Star State noted that "DACA recipients impose over $750 million in annual costs" and that "a favorable judgment against DACA would at least partially alleviate Texas’s harm," according to Hanen's decision. It's unclear what the future of the program is except that it will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
According to Fox News, President-elect Donald Trump attempted to abolish DACA during his first term while trying to make room for the so-called Dreamers. These children of illegal immigrants number nearly half a million who have gone to school, lived, and worked in the U.S.
Their fate has not yet been determined, though they have been allowed to work and live in the U.S. while the courts hash it out. The fight has persisted even as President Joe Biden drafted his version in 2022, which would have eliminated the portion that was rejected.
If the challenge ends up in the Supreme Court once again, it will be the third time the highest court in the land has had a crack at it. The provision has been under legal challenge since Obama presented it in 2012.
In 2016, the Supreme Court heard the appeal but was deadlocked 4-4 since there was a vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. DACA survived a 2020 challenge because the court determined Trump did not follow proper procedure when trying to end the program.
The high court now has a 6-3 conservative majority, which may help decisively cancel the problem altogether. Coupled with the fact that Trump is about to begin another four-year term, the future of the immigration policy appears to be in peril.
At the heart of this issue is the fact that Obama tried to overhaul immigration enforcement in an unprecedented way. Welcoming illegal immigrants was a goal of the administration, and Obama expressed outrage when Trump tried to cancel his pet provision to do just that.
"Let’s be clear: The action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question," Obama said at the time, according to the Washington Post.
"Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us. … Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages," Obama claimed.
"It is self-defeating — because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel," Obama later added, tugging at the heartstrings.
It's a terrible thing to be in the position many of those who came to the U.S. as children and have built their lives here are in now. However, caution is necessary as every amnesty program encourages more of the behavior that created the problem in the first place.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge is allowing to move forward a lawsuit over the Biden administration's decision to deregulate an abortion chemical that is used to kill unborn babies.
The ruling comes from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, and allows the states of Missouri, Kansas and Idaho to continue their claims against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's anti-life agenda.
Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "The FDA must be held accountable for its dangerous and unlawful actions. The FDA should no longer be allowed to circumvent safety laws to allow a eugenic drug to destroy innocent children and harm women. Abortion drugs have never been safe and harm women and kill children."
At issue is access to the dangerous Mifepristone drug, and the feds' decision to allow the drug to be shipped into those states and undermine their prolife legal frameworks.
"The ruling denied the FDA's request to dismiss the case and granted the states more time to amend and strengthen their complaint," explained a report from Liberty Counsel.
The states now can transition from a previous case brought by a group of pro-life doctors, who the Supreme Court said didn't have legal standing to use.
The new, and amended, claims, "could end up back at the Supreme Court in the future," the report said, as "The states assert they have the legal standing to sue the FDA because its relaxed restrictions involving a dangerous drug like Mifepristone puts lives and health at risk and undermines state pro-life laws protecting women, girls, and unborn children."
The focal point of the case is the FDA's allowing of the drug to be handed out via telehealth, without the patient ever seeing a doctor in person. Then the drugs are delivered by mail.
The report explained, "In April 2023, Judge Kacsmaryk presided over the original abortion pill case from the pro-life doctors and determined that the FDA shouldn't have approved Mifepristone for public use in 2000 and voided its approval. He noted the agency approved the abortion pill under political pressure, its safety studies were improperly conducted, and that the FDA's regulatory decisions allowing them to be prescribed via telemedicine, sent by mail, and dispensed at retail pharmacies were unlawful."
The Supreme Court then reversed the judicial course and allowed the deregulation scheme to remain.
"The states now want a ruling, including a preliminary injunction, that restores regulations on Mifepristone, including a plan for follow-up visits by the patient with a doctor, limiting the use of the drugs on unborn, restoring a requirement that doctors be involved, and demanding all serious and non-fatal adverse events be documented.
In the case, the states charge the federal bureaucrats have disregarded the health and safety needs of Americans, and have created conditions "where women and girls can face severe and life-threatening complications due to easy access to the drugs through the mail and little to no medical oversight while taking them – conditions that bypass state pro-life protections and send women and girls to emergency rooms."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists running school districts in many places across America have adopted some extremist ideas these days, including transgenderism – especially after the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration spent four years promoting it.
And sometimes they've used their positions to select materials that indoctrinate children with such ideologies. Sometimes they let parents opt their children out of what the families consider offensive material, but not always.
And in one of those cases, the Supreme Court now will intervene.
It is Becket that confirmed the high court agreed to decide whether parents can opt their children out of such teaching in one Maryland district.
"Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents' permission is an affront to our nation's traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency," explained Becket senior counsel Eric Baxter.
"The court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality."
The case being taken up by the court is Mahmoud v. Taylor, involving the Montgomery County, Md., Board of Education, which "took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks" that celebrate "gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four."
Becket's report said older students can opt out when similar topics are introduced during high school health class.
But not in the early grades, so Becket has been representing families of Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths who challenged the board's edict.
The school "inclusivity" promotions were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade, and, Becket explained, they "champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality."
"For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes 'intersex flag,' 'drag queen,' 'underwear,' 'leather,' and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker," Becket explained.
Teachers are told to claim to children that physicians "guess" about a newborn's sex.
Then the board specifically revoked all notice and opt-out opportunities for parents.
"The school board has pushed inappropriate gender indoctrination on our children instead of focusing on the fundamental areas of education that they need to thrive," said Grace Morrison, of Kids First, an association of parents and teachers advocating for notice and opt-outs.
"I pray the Supreme Court will stop this injustice, allow parents to raise their children according to their faith, and restore common sense in Maryland once again."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President-elect Donald Trump on Friday promised that he's "reviewing" the situation concerning the ultra-popular social media app TikTok and that he'll be choosing a path forward very soon.
The issue is that lawmakers had a high level of concern over the app's links to the Chinese Communist Party and the likelihood it was collecting detailed personal information about some 170 million Americans and making it available to the CCP.
Congress then set a deadline of Sunday for the Chinese ownership of TikTok, ByteDance, to sell the app or close it down in the U.S.
Users and creators sued and the Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the legislative action.
Immediately, Trump commented on the dispute online.
"Ultimately goes up to me, so you're going to see what I'm going to do," he explained. "Congress has given me the decision, so I'll be making the decision."
He called for everyone to respect the court's decision, but confirmed, "'My decision on TikTok will be made in the not-too-distant future,
The Supreme Court's Friday decision said the provisions of the law were content-neutral, and targeted a foreign adversary's control of a platform rather than targeting particular speech.
Some 170 million Americans use the app, which provides for posting short videos.
It was the Daily Mail that opined, "The path forward now depends on how the incoming Trump administration responds as the CEO of TikTok Shou Zi will be seated in a place of honor with other tech leaders at President-elect Trump's inauguration on Monday."
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the dispute just a week ago, and at that time Trump expressed support for TikTok and suggested a negotiated solution might be achievable.
On social media, Trump explained, "The Supreme Court decision was expected, and everyone must respect it. My decision on TikTok will be made in the not-too-distant future, but I must have time to review the situation. Stay tuned!"
Joe Biden, who is leaving office Monday, passed the buck. A White House statement said, "Given the sheer fact of timing, this administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next administration, which takes office on Monday."
Trump during his first term opposed TikTok, but recently has expressed having "a little bit of a warm spot in my heart" for the app, through which he was able to reach millions of voters during the 2024 vote.
Trump recently confirmed on Truth Social that, "I just spoke to Chairman Xi Jinping of China. The call was a very good one for both China and the U.S.A. It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately. We discussed balancing Trade Fentanyl, TikTok, and many other subjects. President Xi and I will do everything possible to make the World more peaceful and safe!"
A political saga at the Arkansas Supreme Court has taken another dramatic turn, with a staff member telling the Chief Justice to stay out of his office.
The Supreme Court changed its rules after Justice Karen Baker entered the office of administrative director Marty Sullivan when he wasn't there. The chief justice reportedly left the room in a "disheveled" state, something she denied.
Baker later wrote to the court's police chief and warned that "there better not be any footage going around" of the December incident.
In an email, Sullivan wrote to Baker on Monday, advising her to stay out of administrative offices pending an HR review.
“Per the recommendation of the report, I believe it is more than reasonable that you do not enter AOC offices or engage in direct contact or communication with AOC staff until the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission provides further instruction,” Sullivan’s email said.
Baker was elected Chief Justice in November, becoming the first woman in the role.
Within her first week on the job, she faced a power struggle with her fellow justices after she attempted a mass firing of court employees, including Sullivan and police chief Pete Hollingsworth.
The firing order was blocked by her colleagues, who accused Baker of overstepping her authority in an act of retaliation.
Baker held her ground, and blamed two of her former electoral opponents, who sit on the court, for the backlash.
“Notwithstanding the will of the people in selecting me to serve in this position, two of my opponents in the Chief Justice race that remain on the court are now attempting to take what the people would not give them by force,” the chief justice wrote.
Concerning Sullivan, Baker wrote that he entered an unethical, and illegal, employment contract with five of the justices that guaranteed him a job until 2032, totaling $1.6 million in pay over eight years.
Arkansas law prohibits employees from entering contracts in which they have a financial interest, Baker said, adding she is treating Sullivan's signature as his resignation.
Furthermore, Baker accused the five justices who entered the contract of trying to "commandeer" her authority to select her own director.
"If this were allowed to stand, I would not be permitted to perform my duties as constitutionally required of the Chief Justice for the eight years I have been sworn to serve."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A legal team from the Thomas More Society has asked the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump to pardon a number of pro-life advocates who were prosecuted – and jailed – by the outgoing officials of the Joe Biden regime.
The requests are for 21 individuals, and the documentation that was submitted outlines the specific facts of each case, including affirmations of their "upstanding personal and moral character."
Included, too, are the reasons for the request, with an explanation about how the Biden Department of Justice weaponized the federal law, using the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and a "Conspiracy Against Rights" provision to attack pro-lifers.
"With these requests for presidential pardons for 21 peaceful pro-life advocates, we urge President Trump to right the grievous wrongs of the Biden administration's weaponization of the Department of Justice," explained the organization's senior counsel, Steve Crampton.
"These 21 peaceful pro-lifers, many of whom are currently imprisoned for bravely standing up for unborn life, are upstanding citizens and pillars of their communities. Through full and unconditional pardons for these pro-life advocates, President Trump has the chance to remedy the harm done to them and their families, deliver on his campaign promises, and repair trust in our constitutional order."
The society reported noted the 21 include: Joan Bell, Coleman Boyd, Joel Curry, Jonathan Darnel, Eva Edl, Chester Gallagher, William Goodman, Dennis Green, Lauren Handy, Paulette Harlow, John Hinshaw, Heather Idoni, Jean Marshall, Fr. Fidelis Moscinski, Justin Phillips, Paul Place, Paul Vaughn, Bevelyn Beatty Williams, Calvin Zastrow, Eva Zastrow, and James Zastrow.
"We are hopeful that the second Trump administration will spell a new day for pro-life advocates who have faced FBI raids, federal prosecutions, and severe punishment for peacefully and courageously witnessing for life," explained Peter Breen, the organization's head of litigation.
"By acting on the requested presidential pardons, President Trump has a golden opportunity to not only stop the lawfare against peaceful pro-lifers, but to also undo some of the unprecedented damage of the Biden administration. Inside and outside the courtroom, Thomas More Society attorneys have seen up close the harm inflicted by the Biden DOJ's weaponization the FACE Act. Today, we call on President Trump to pardon these peaceful pro-lifers and put an end to this government overreach."
The report noted that Trump has, on several occasions already, "signaled his intent to pardon the pro-life advocates.
One comment was from a little over a year ago when he said he would review the cases "of every political prisoner who's been unjustly persecuted by the Biden administration."
Joe Biden has used the power of the presidential pardon liberally in just the past few weeks, prominently giving a get-out-of-jail free card to his son, Hunter, for any and all crimes he committed over the past 11 years.
Hunter Biden already had been convicted of multiple gun charges, and had pleaded guilty to a long list of tax evasion charges.
Joe Biden also has commuted the death sentences of dozens of convicted murderers, and some 1,500 other criminal case convicts.
In an emotional outburst that took place at one in the morning, Donald Trump attacked Jack Smith.
This came after the special counsel published his report, which concluded that the president-elect attempted to illegally change the results of the 2020 election, as The Daily Mail reported.
According to the findings of the study presented by the Department of Justice, Trump "inspired his supporters to commit acts of physical violence" during the riots that occurred on January 6 and willfully promoted a false narrative about fraud in the 2020 election.
In addition, the long-awaited paper, which was written by Smith, asserted that Trump would have been found guilty of the role he played if he had not been re-elected by voters in a landslide victory the previous year.
In response, Trump unleashed a raging tirade on his social media platform TruthSocial, describing Smith as a "deranged lamebrain prosecutor."
“Deranged Jack Smith... is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide,” Trump wrote.
“[He was] was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his ‘boss,’ Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another ‘Report”’ based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were.”
A reference to the House select committee that was led by Representative Bennie Thompson and was responsible for investigating the effort to alter the results of the 2020 election was part of the report.
The document noted that President Trump made the claim that the committee had destroyed evidence because it demonstrated how "totally innocent" he was, but he did not provide any proof to back up his assertion.
Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, made an announcement earlier this month that there will be a formal investigation of the House committee in question.
The committee in question included Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as members. This action is commonly interpreted as an act of retaliation on behalf of the incoming president.
Smith spoke up for his investigation, saying: “The claim from Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.”
Smith has been subjected to consistent criticism by President-elect Trump, and his supporters have suggested that the special counsel should now be prosecuted for his prosecution of the case against him.
In various sections, the report explores Trump's use of influece on the ceremonial role in certifying the election results in Congress as well as his pressure on his subordinate, Mike Pence.
“When it became clear that Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power”, Smith wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A "deranged Jack Smith," who was ruled to have been incompetently appointed "special counsel" by Merrick Garland because the Senate never confirmed him, in a final report on President-elect Donald Trump's alleged "election interference" has expanded his prosecutorial duties to take on the responsibilities of a judge and jury.
In his final report on Trump's comments and opinions after the 2020 presidential election, he insists that Trump would have been convicted, had not the case been dropped because Trump was re-elected to the White House. Smith was assigned by Democrats to handled two major components of the party's lawfare against Trump, which apparently was intended to prevent him from running for president again.
Trump took no hostages in his response.
"Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another 'Report' based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were. Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!"
He continued, "To show you how desperate Deranged Jack Smith is, he released his Fake findings at 1:00 A.M. in the morning. Did he say that the Unselect Committee illegally destroyed and deleted all of the evidence."
A second half of Smith's claims, about government documents Trump had, isn't released, but these claims all circle the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, protest-turned-riot in Washington, in which a few hundreds of Trump supporters entered the Capitol without permission and did some vandalism.
The facts are that there were multiple undue influences on that election, such as the FBI's election interference, that gave rise to legitimate questions about the results. Further, a recording unleashed years later confirmed that Trump had suggested more National Guard troops for security that day, and Democrats in Washington and in Congress refused him. Nancy Pelosi later admitted culpability. And then her committee to investigate did orchestrate the evidence to try to make Trump look responsible, and then refused to preserve the evidence used in its work.
Smith, in fact, already has quit his position. It was a judge in the documents case that dismissed the documents claims earlier because Smith never was confirmed by the Senate after his appointment by Garland.
Fox News reported Smith's claims included that the "proof the most certain" in his allegations against Trump.
Smith claimed, according to Fox, the case was under review because of a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity when the election made it clear Trump had won. The Department of Justice then dismissed the case.
"The Department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind," the report stated.
Smith brought his claims against Trump in U.S. District Court for Washington D.C. in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request.
Smith's unproven claims were that Trump conspired to defraud the United States by expressing his doubts and concerns about the election processes, conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
Trump advocates, in fact, have already suggested that Smith could face investigation, and maybe even charges, on that last allegation, conspiracy against rights, for his attacks on Trump.