This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fani Willis, the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney who hired her paramour, at a cost to taxpayers of some $600,000, to create an organized crime case against now President-elect Donald Trump, has long fought against a request for public records regarding her investigation.
Now, apparently, she's going to have to pay for her deeds.
Some $21,578.00.
Judicial Watch, which brought the public documents fight to Willis over her collusion with special counsel Jack Smith and Nancy Pelosi's partisan House committee investigation of Jan. 6, announced that the Superior Court in Fulton County has ordered Willis to pay that amount for "attorney's fees and costs" in the fight.
The court earlier had ruled that she was in default in the case.
Judicial Watch sued last March "after Willis falsely denied having any records responsive to Judicial Watch's earlier Georgia Open Records Act request for communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith's office and/or the January 6 Committee."
After finding her in default, the court held a hearing and that resulted in the payment order.
Those "shall be paid within two weeks of the entry of this Order," the court said.
Judicial Watch had asked for the records of what could be collusion among the various anti-Trump agendas that had been developed in the Democrats' lawfare against him.
Her office apparently responded that no records existed, although Judicial Watch already had uncovered at least one that "should have been in the district attorney's offices' possession."
Ultimately, Willis simply defaulted on the requirements of the court and law.
The court found "relevant and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation are properly awardable to Plaintiff … Defendant is thus liable to Plaintiff for $21,578 pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-73(b). That amount shall be paid within two weeks of the entry of this Order."
Judicial Watch explained, "Willis by her own admission conducted at least three searches before finding any responsive records not already supplied by [Judicial Watch]. She did not even bother to conduct a search until the Complaint was filed. Her records custodian says he does not know the Cellebrite [digital investigations] equipment he apparently had a hand in ordering can be used to search cell phone texts and other data…. Moreover, the custodian had no standard practice for conducting searches and keeps no records of the methods used in a given search."
That all gives grounds for "grave suspicion that all responsive records have not been found," Judicial Watch said, in asking for a special master to be appointed to supervise and monitor the records searches.
"Fani Willis flouted the law, and the court is right to slam her and require, at a minimum, the payment of nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "But in the end, Judicial Watch wants the full truth on what she was hiding – her office's political collusion with the Pelosi January 6 committee to 'get Trump.'"
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has petitioned Supreme Court justices to consider limiting the power of lower courts to block federal policies and laws, Vox reported. In his piece, senior correspondent Ian Millhiser warns that President-elect Donald Trump would be the "biggest immediate beneficiary."
As Millhiser noted, the outcome of the Garland v. Texas Top Cop Shop case could "be a constitutional earthquake" if the court heeds the urgings of its high court's top litigator. The case centers around a "federal law requiring many businesses to disclose their owners to the federal government" that was struck down by a lower court.
Besides supposedly "dubious reasoning" to do so, the implications of blocking lower courts from such actions would "limit judges’ ability to halt Trump administration policies, even if those policies are illegal," the author of the piece "Biden’s DOJ just asked the Supreme Court to do a huge favor for Donald Trump" claimed. Millhiser didn't stop there with the doom and gloom predictions.
"If the Supreme Court were to uphold this judge’s reasoning, that would be a constitutional earthquake, as the trial judge’s opinion attacks Congress’s broad power to regulate businesses and the economy. That outcome is probably unlikely, however, because the trial judge’s opinion is poorly argued," Millhiser noted.
The case could initiate a pivotal decision because "[Judge] Amos Mazzant, issued a 'nationwide injunction' preventing the federal government from enforcing the ownership-reporting law against anyone at all" in the lower court decision. "Now the Court might limit the power of low-ranking federal judges like Mazzant to issue decisions that make rules for the nation as a whole," Millhiser warned.
The question is whether the power to stop any federal policy or law should lie in the hands of a single judge. As the Vox author noted, more than 1,000 judges currently sit on the federal bench.
"If nationwide injunctions are allowed, any one of these district judges could potentially halt any federal law, even if every other judge in the country disagrees with them," Millhiser warned. The issue also becomes particularly problematic in places like Texas, where Mazzant serves, which allows plaintiffs the right to choose their judge.
"During the Biden administration, Republicans often selected highly partisan judges to hear challenges to liberal federal policies — and those judges frequently rewarded this behavior by issuing nationwide injunctions," Millhiser said. He added that even if those injunctions are ultimately overturned on appeal, it can be months before that happens.
With Trump about to take over the White House, "the Court’s decision in Top Cop Shop could be one of the most significant cases of the next several years, as it could drastically increase Trump’s ability to implement policies that federal courts determine to be unlawful," Millhiser believes. He warns that the consequences are far-reaching.
The left-leaning publication is worried that Trump will get his way more often if the court decides as Prelogar is urging. The underlying facts of the case are "very silly, as the federal law at issue in this case is obviously constitutional," the author asserts.
"Top Cop Shop involves the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which Congress enacted in the waning days of the first Trump administration as part of a broader national defense bill." The intent was to stop bad actors from concealing their interest in businesses to "'facilitate illicit activity' such as money laundering, funding terrorism, and various forms of fraud."
Mazzant ruled CTA was "unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s authority to 'regulate commerce … among the several states," but the author disagrees with the reasoning, especially if it means setting a strong precedent. Moreover, Millhiser is worried that the conservative-majority Supreme Court will be persuaded to limit the powers of lower courts at this time.
"The Republican Supreme Court did very little to limit nationwide injunctions while a Democratic administration was the target of those injunctions. But, now that a Republican president is about to take over, it’s possible that this Court will finally address a problem that both political parties agree is serious," Millhiser claimed.
These legal questions come up all of the time, but leftists only care about possible loopholes when their politicians are not the ones in power. The Founding Fathers knew this. Thus, the checks and balances built into the U.S. government allow many avenues for fairness, including this one, which Trump will surely cheer on.
President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Joseph Nocella Jr. to become U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, the Washington Examiner reported. Trump made this announcement Monday as a replacement for Breon Peace, who will step down on Jan. 10.
The district includes nearly 8 million people spread across Long Island, Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Queens. The longtime prosecutor is a strong conservative pick for Trump, a fact which will not sit well with leftists.
"It is my great honor to announce that Joseph Nocella, Jr., will be the next United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Judge Nocella has a strong record of bringing Law and Order to the incredible people of New York, serving as a Nassau County District Court Judge, and Family Court Judge," Trump posted to Truth Social Monday night.
Trump went on to share highlights from Nocella's resume, proving he's qualified for the job. Nocelle's experience includes serving as the assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York between 1991 and 1995.
"A proud graduate of Columbia Law School, he has also spent over ten years in private practice. Judge Nocella previously served as a law clerk to the Honorable Lawrence M. McKenna, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York," Trump's post said.
The New York Post expounded upon this, noting that Nocella worked as the chief of staff for the Hempstead town supervisor between 2020 and 2021. He then acted as town attorney from 2021 to 2022.
In 2022, Nocella became a Nassau County District Court judge, in addition to other roles in Nassau County and Oyster Bay government. Bruce Blakeman, Nassau County Executive, lauded Trump's decision in a statement Monday.
"Thank you President Trump for making this important appointment. Joe Nocella is a seasoned prosecutor with great integrity and will be a valuable asset in fighting crime and protecting the homeland," Blakeman wrote.
Besides Nocella, Forbes shared Trump's other stellar picks he has already made right out of the gate. The most notable of his choices are cabinet members, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence.
Kennedy, who began as a Democrat before switching to Independent for his presidential primary bid, has promised to "Make America Healthy Again" in a play on Trump's famous slogan. He has promised to cast a critical eye on conventional health wisdom on food additives and vaccines.
Trump made another great pick with Gabbard, a former Congresswoman from Hawaii who left the Democratic Party to become an independent in 2022 before becoming a Republican. Finally, Trump named former campaign co-manager Susie Wiles as his chief of staff.
Wiles was responsible for the strategy that got Trump elected with popular and Electoral College votes. Fox News reported that she's promised no "drama" in the new administration. "My team and I will not tolerate backbiting, second-guessing inappropriately, or drama. These are counterproductive to the mission," Wiles promised.
One of the hallmarks of being a great leader is finding the right people to delegate to. With these picks, Trump has made it clear that he is running a tight ship with lots of diverse voices this time around.
U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel of Japan filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration after a $15 billion acquisition deal was blocked by the administration, accusing the head of the Steelworker's union and a rival steel company of colluding to scuttle it.
Biden pretended to be "America first" about the deal, but overlooked the fact that Japan is a strong ally of the U.S.
Major U.S. steel companies need to "keep leading the fight on behalf of America’s national interests,” Biden said.
America's national interests include strong relationships with our allies, or maybe Biden's brain just isn't computing basic facts anymore.
“Nippon Steel and U. S. Steel have engaged in good faith with all parties to underscore how the Transaction will enhance, not threaten, United States national security," the companies said in a prepared statement Monday.
Nippon was poised to invest $2.7 billion into aging blast furnaces in Mon Valley, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana.
U.S. Steel said without that investment, it would have to pivot to cheaper non-union furnaces and move its headquarters out of Pittsburgh.
Federal regulators deadlocked over the takeover, which led Biden to halt it.
“A strong domestically owned and operated steel industry represents an essential national security priority. ... Without domestic steel production and domestic steel workers, our nation is less strong and less secure," he said in a statement.
It's the first time a merger with a Japanese company has been blocked by a U.S. president, MSN noted.
A separate suit was filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania jointly by Nippon and U.S. Steel.
It accused rival steel company Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and its CEO, Lourenco Goncalves, in coordination with U.S. Steelworkers union head David McCall, of “engaging in a coordinated series of anticompetitive and racketeering activities” to block the deal.
It turns out Cleveland-Cliffs had offered to buy U.S. Steel in 2023 for $7 billion, but was refused.
McCall has for a long time called Nippon a “serial trade cheater” and accused it of dumping products into the U.S. market.
But Nippon may not fare any better with incoming President Donald Trump, who also opposes the acquisition.
A protracted legal battle in Montana over the environmental effects of a controversial power plant just resulted in a notable ruling from the state's highest court.
As the Daily Montanan reports, the fight over the Laurel Generation Station and its greenhouse gas emissions has yielded a unanimous decision from the Montana Supreme Court finding that the state and the energy company owner of the facility skirted the law, but the outcome may do little to hinder operations going forward, disappointing activists on the left.
As KULR in Billings explains, the plaintiffs in the case at issue filed suit in 2021 against NorthWestern Energy and the state's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) after a permit was issued for the energy company to operate the Laurel Generating Station.
In their quest to halt operations of the plant, the plaintiffs claimed that it was releasing the equivalent of 167,000 cars per year in greenhouse gases and that the energy company and the DEQ did not comply with relevant regulations in the permitting process.
At the District Court level, it was determined that the defendants did conduct satisfactory reviews in relation to the plant's noise output but failed in the areas of lighting as well as greenhouse gas emissions, findings that resulted in the suspension of the permit.
The state Supreme Court, however, noted that the DEQ, at the time in question, was following applicable law, even if those statutes were later invalidated, and the panel also observed that the plaintiffs in the case had never actually requested suspension of the operational permit in the court below.
As such, the justices ruled, that the Laurel Generation Station will be permitted to continue operations under the existing permit, though the DEQ will be required to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the plant's pollution impacts and report on the effects that its greenhouse gas emission and use of industrial lighting will have on the surrounding area.
In the wake of the ruling, statements in reaction were issued by both sides of the dispute, with NorthWestern Energy declaring, “Today's Montana Supreme Court's decision reinstating the Yellowstone County Generating Station permit will help ensure reliable energy service and keep bills as low as possible for our customers.”
The company went on, “This is good news for Montanans already relying on the critical, cost-saving capacity of the 175-megawatt Yellowstone County Generating Station, including for power during this first winter storm of 2025.”
Pledging compliance with the full Supreme Court order, the company added, “NorthWestern Energy will work with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality to provide any additional information necessary.”
The Sierra Club and the Montana Environmental Information Center, the groups that initially challenged the permit, also claimed a degree of victory in the wake of the ruling, saying that the justices rendered a strong reinforcement of the Montana Constitution's mandate for a “clean and healthful environment.”
“We are pleased that the Montana Supreme Court has ruled that Montanans deserve to know the full harm that the 770,000 tons of annual climate pollution NorthWestern Energy's power plant will impose on our farmers, ranchers, economy, and health, said the chair of Northern Plans Resource Council, a group that has stood in opposition to the plant, though he did note the organization's disappointment that the plant's continued operation was permitted by the high court.
Though the long-running nature of the disagreement in this case was noteworthy, what was not in dispute between the parties was the volume of pollutants emerging from the plant's operation, which includes 75 tons of Particulate Matter 10, 28 tons of Particulate Matter 2.5, 222 tons annually of nitrogen oxides, 246 tons of carbon monoxide, 14 tons of sulfur dioxide, and more.
Precisely what the now-mandated DEQ review will reveal -- or might suggest in terms of potential remediation -- remains unclear, but it seems certain that all eyes will indeed be on the outcome of that process.
Justice Juan Merchan denied President-elect Donald Trump's request to toss his conviction and instead set sentencing for Jan. 10, the Washington Examiner reported. The Democratic Manhattan judge has indicated that Trump would likely not face any jail time.
In May, Trump was convicted of 34 felonies over a payment he made to former porn star Stormy Daniels and how it was paid. He allegedly was attempting to keep their affair secret during the 2016 presidential campaign with the payment.
After Trump's conviction by a Manhattan jury, the judge set sentencing for Nov. 26. However, that date was pushed back after Trump won another term in the White House on Nov. 5.
In Friday's order, Merchan wrote that Trump would receive a sentence of "unconditional discharge," which means Trump avoids probation, fines, or prison. Still, it will come just 10 days before he is set to take office.
Trump faced four separate cases after announcing he would run for the presidency. Of those, only the New York case made it to trial before Election Day because of various factual and legal obstacles.
His legal team failed to get Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against Trump thrown out after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor over presidential immunity. Friday's decision confirmed that this case wasn't ending, and Trump allies were predictably unhappy.
"Democrat Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan—who donated to Trump’s opponents and whose adult daughter Loren is raising money off of this bogus case—once again proves he is partisan, corrupt, and dangerous. The Supreme Court must end this immediately," Article III Project founder Mike Davis said.
Trump's spokesman, Steven Cheung, also slammed Merchan's ruling. "This lawless case should have never been brought and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed," he said in a statement.
"Today’s order by the deeply conflicted, Acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Immunity decision and other longstanding jurisprudence," Cheung added. This is just the latest in a string of injustices against Trump.
According to NBC News, Trump faced four major criminal cases as of this time last year. His legal woes still persist today, but many of those prosecutions are only hanging together by a thread.
For instance, the election interference case in Georgia is indefinitely on hold after it was discovered that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had a relationship with the prosecutor she hired for the case. Trump and the other defendants have argued that she should be disqualified because of that.
Even if the issue is resolved in the courts, bringing that case once again will be an uphill battle. Trump's federal case over the Jan. 6 attack has been dismissed, as was the classified documents case in Florida.
The hefty $350 million judgment against Trump for allegedly inflating the value of his assets is still outstanding, but Trump's legal team continues to appeal the penalty. Thankfully, none of these cases were enough to keep Trump out of the White House.
These cases brought against Trump were suspiciously timed just as he announced his intention to run for the presidency again. They have fallen one by one, but Merchan is clearly holding on to the last one standing.
A federal appeals court has struck down President Biden's attempted revival of so-called net neutrality regulations, putting a years-long debate on the issue to rest.
The push for net neutrality began during the Obama presidency, when progressives embraced regulating internet service providers in the name of keeping the internet open and equal.
The issue lost much of its salience after President Trump repealed his predecessor's net neutrality rules in 2018. Trump's reversal led to outrage among liberals who declared the death of the "open internet."
That dramatic outcome never materialized, but it did not stop the Biden administration from attempting to revive net neutrality last year.
Now, an appeals court has affirmed that the government does not have the authority to regulate internet providers like public utilities, likely relegating the issue to the past.
The demise of net neutrality was primed by a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court last year, Loper Bright, which significantly curtailed the power of federal agencies in the so-called administrative state. The ruling clarified that courts must stop deferring to agencies' own interpretations of the law.
Armed with Loper, the all-Republican Sixth Circuit said it was time to rule plainly on net neutrality and stop the FCC's reversals between administrations.
"Applying Loper Bright, means we can end the FCC's vacillations," the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The ruling has divided the FCC, with Biden's chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel urging Congress to write net neutrality into law.
“Consumers across the country have told us again and again that they want an internet that is fast, open, and fair,” said Rosenworcel. “It is clear that Congress now needs to heed their call, take up the charge for net neutrality and put open internet principles in federal law.”
In a blistering statement, Republican FCC member Brendan Carr celebrated the ruling as a setback for Biden's "power grab" of the internet.
Carr, who is set to lead the FCC in the second Trump administration, dismissed net neutrality as a "quixotic" crusade that distracted time and resources from real problems like expanding internet access for rural Americans.
"Indeed, it has now been 1,145 days since President Biden signed his $42 billion plan for expanding Internet access into law. But today, not one home or business has been connected through that program," Carr said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A politician who was punished by her own political party for stating a scientific fact now is suing for damages.
A report in the Times reveals Natalie Bird is seeking £90,000 in damages from her own Liberal Democrats political coalition in the United Kingdom after officials punished her – by banning her from standing for office in 2029 – and calling her a "bigot."
Her offense was to wear a shirt with the slogan: "Woman: adult human female."
The report explained, "Natalie Bird has told a judge that activist members of Sir Ed Davey's party targeted her because she expressed the gender-critical view that men cannot transition to become women."
The single mother had been a candidate to represent Wakefield, and chose to pursue "safe spaces for vulnerable women" because of her own experiences with domestic abuse.
The name-calling erupted after she wore the shirt, and included a description of her as a "trans-exclusionary radical feminist," and the party suspended her and then barred her from seeking election.
The report said, "Representatives of the party 'conceded the claim' this year."
But it's back in court as Bird seeks damages for "injury to feelings" because the party breached her membership contract and her rights.
Her lawyer said in the report she had been further attacked with "silencing, intimidating and bullying" because of her beliefs.
Those beliefs, the court case argues, are protected under the nation's Equality Act 2010.
"Bird told the judge, Karen Walden-Smith, that she was removed as a prospective parliamentary candidate in 2019 and banned from standing for 10 years. Two senior Liberal Democrats have already admitted the party's culpability and the amount of damages to be paid to Bird are being assessed," the report said.
The party is accused of demonstrating "a pattern of behavior" of intentional shunning of Bird "for holding a view which she has every right to hold."
The Christian Institute said Bird had been threatened by the party with exclusion if she "did not agree that 'trans women are women,'" a popular catch phrase for those who support men calling themselves women if they choose.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A "deeply conflicted" judge in New York, Juan Merchan, says he wants to sentence President-elect Donald Trump on Jan. 10 in his case over apparent misdemeanor business records infractions that suddenly were felonies because an anti-Trump prosecutor claimed they were in pursuit of another, unidentified, crime.
The announcement Friday comes from Merchan in the case in which a leftist jury in Manhattan convicted Trump on 34 of those records violations.
The legacy media has styled the case the "hush money" case essentially because Trump's organization labeled his payments to his then-lawyer as legal fees when some of the money went to a woman to keep quiet about an alleged affair, which both alleged participants have denied happened.
Trump communications director Steven Cheung didn't waste time responding: "Today's order by the deeply conflicted, Acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court's Immunity decision and other longstanding jurisprudence. This lawless case should have never been brought and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed. President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process and to execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this or any remnants of the Witch Hunts. There should be no sentencing, and President Trump will continue fighting against these hoaxes until they are all dead."
There are legal motions that can be filed that could stymie Merchan's agenda.
The Article III Project, which advocates for the judiciary, similarly responded, revealing some of the conflicts that face Merchan's plans.
"Democrat Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan—who donated to Trump's opponents and whose adult daughter Loren is raising money off of this bogus case—once again proves he is partisan, corrupt, and dangerous. The Supreme Court must end this immediately," said Mike Davis, who helped win Senate confirmation battles for Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
ABC reported the case sentence will include an "unconditional discharge."
The report said Merchan claimed such a ruling is the "most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options."
Merchan, who analysts have suggested is thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court's recent immunity ruling regarding the Trump cases, assumed the pulpit to lecture Trump over his "disdain for the third branch of government."
He accused Trump of going to "great lengths to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grand juries and the justice system as a whole."
That "disdain" from Trump followed a years-long series of lawfare cases assembled by Democrats who appeared to be trying to jail him to keep him from running for the White House again.
For example, multiple charges were filed over the government documents Trump held after he left the presidency. However, federal prosecutors found Joe Biden liable for the same offense, but gave him a free pass for his actions. One jurisdiction even claimed an "organized crime" conspiracy involved Trump.
Merchan's scheme to give Trump a "discharge" would mean there's no penalty, but the conviction would remain on Trump's record.
The conviction already is facing an appeal, with constitutional experts aligned in the opinion that the case ultimately will be thrown out.
WND previously has reported when Merchan insisted on keeping his case going, when other lawfare attacks were being dismissed, Trump wrote, "In a completely illegal, psychotic order, the deeply conflicted, corrupt, biased, and incompetent Acting Justice Juan Merchan has completely disrespected the United States Supreme Court, and its Historic Decision on Immunity. But even without Immunity, this illegitimate case is nothing but a Rigged Hoax. Merchan, who is a radical partisan, wrote an opinion that is knowingly unlawful, goes against our Constitution, and, if allowed to stand, would be the end of the Presidency as we know it. Merchan has so little respect for the Constitution that he is keeping in place an illegal gag order on me, your President and President-Elect, just so I cannot expose his and his family's disqualifying and illegal conflicts…."
The case had shaky origins to start. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought business recording situations, which would have been misdemeanors had they been filed before the statute of limitations expired, to court, claiming they were felonies because they were in pursuit of another, unidentified crime.
Then Merchan allowed the salacious testimony of a former porn star in his courtroom and the leftist jury in leftist Manhattan returned guilty verdicts to 34 counts.
Trump continued, "….I am the only Political Opponent in American History not allowed to defend myself – A despicable First Amendment Violation! Merchan took the Manhattan D.A.'s Witch Hunt, that, according to all Legal Scholars, including Jonathan Turley, Elie Honig, Andy McCarthy, Alan Dershowitz, Gregg Jarrett, David Rivkin, Elizabeth Price Foley, Katie and Andy Cherkasky, Paul Ingrassia, and many others, is a nonexistent case, barred by the Statute of Limitations, and should have never been brought and, through his fraud and misconduct, gave it a semblance of 'life.' While Deranged Jack Smith was sent packing back to The Hague after losing all of his politically manufactured cases against me, Merchan, who is far worse and even more corrupt than Smith in his fight for my hopeless political opponents, just cannot let go of this charade. Is it because of his conflicts and relations that he keeps breaking the Law? This has to stop! It is time to end the Lawfare once and for all, so we can come together as one Nation and, Make America Great Again."
Trump's lawyers, citing Joe Biden's recent complaints about unfair prosecutions, had insisted Merchan, who inexplicably had told the jury their verdict did not have to be unanimous, dismiss the case entirely.
Trump's lawyers had told Merchan, "President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits this motion to dismiss the Indictment and vacate the jury's verdicts… The Presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act, and the Supremacy Clause all require that result, and they require it immediately."
Experts have noted the trial itself was "replete with layers of reversible error."
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned about the dangers of Democrats and other elected officials who attempt to undermine the high court's rulings, The Hill reported. Roberts said this pressure comes "from across the political spectrum" ahead of President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration.
In his year-end report released Tuesday, Roberts addressed the problem with what he called "illegitimate activity" involving elected officials. He used the example of one federal district judge "whose decisions in a high-profile case" led to impeachment calls from a politician.
Roberts said that the bar associations need to "come to the defense" of judges in similar situations. "Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed," Roberts wrote in the report.
"Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others," Roberts added. The report comes as judges face outside threats while trust in the court plummets.
Roberts stressed that the court's job is not to appease everyone but to do what's right by the law. "It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy," he wrote in the report.
"Most cases have a winner and a loser. Every Administration suffers defeats in the court system—sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topic," Roberts added.
The chief justice noted that some elected officials have called legitimate decisions by federal courts "dangerous suggestions" that they can disregard. Roberts stressed that this comes "from across the political spectrum" rather than any one party in particular.
As Fox News noted, the Supreme Court has issued some rulings that anger Democrats and others that Republicans disagree with. For instance, the high court defanged many of the charges against Trump with the decision to grant presidential immunity.
This led President Joe Biden to urge term limits on Supreme Court judges and to impose an ethics code. Meanwhile, Republicans watched as the same court granted the Biden administration a stay that would allow them to continue to sell the abortion pill.
Supreme Court justices are increasingly under threat solely because of how they decide cases. This trend can arguably be traced back to the leaked draft of the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health decision in 2022.
According to the Washington Post, the leak prompted a California man to show up near the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Nicholas John Roske, 26, drove from his Simi Valley home to exact revenge on one or more of the justices who overturned nearly half a century of bad precedent.
"Roske stated that he began thinking about how to give his life a purpose and decided that he would kill the Supreme Court Justice …," the affidavit stated. Roske was charged with attempted murder, but troublingly, his actions seemed to be part of a broader trend on the left.
Leftists were fine with the Supreme Court improperly making laws for the last several decades. Now that there's a conservative majority on the court who wishes to bring laws back to their originalist interpretation, it's a problem they seek to solve with violence and intimidation.
The checks and balances in the American system of government are a miracle from the minds of our founders. It's vital to protect this system and address the problems like Roberts outlined so that the court can continue to operate as designed.