Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and podcaster Alex Marlow believes President-elect Trump should pardon suspects caught up in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, Breitbart reported. Marlow said this on Tuesday after President Joe Biden announced a presidential pardon for his son, Hunter Biden.
Marlow, host of the "Alex Marlow Show," said Trump must help these people who were unfairly prosecuted. "Donald Trump should pardon every single person and commute the sentences of every person who was involved in January 6," Marlow said.
"It was so overblown, and we need to send a signal that you’re not allowed to do that to the American people," he added. With Joe Biden's recent move to go back on his word about his son, Trump now has yet another mandate.
On Sunday night, Joe Biden issued his son Robert Hunter Biden a "Full and Unconditional Pardon" from his crimes beginning in 2014, the New York Post reported. Hunter Biden was convicted of tax and gun crimes but has yet to be sentenced.
This came after the president had repeatedly insisted he would not do so for his 54-year-old son. Following Hunter Biden's conviction in June, Joe Biden insisted that he was committed to making his son serve whatever sentence he would be given.
"I said I abide by the jury decision. I will do that. And I will not pardon him," the president said. When asked if he would commute his son's sentence, Joe Biden again said he would not.
However, Joe Biden's statement this week claimed that his previous promise didn't hold up because his son was "selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently … singled out only because he is my son," Biden wrote.
Astonishingly, the president still insisted he didn't lie in his previous statements despite doing exactly what he promised he would never do. "For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth," Joe Biden claimed.
During the campaign, Trump pledged to consider pardons for certain Jan. 6 prisoners and suspects. Joe Biden's clemency for his son now opens the door for the incoming president.
"Biden is doing exactly the wrong thing by pardoning Hunter. This will now give Trump the license to pardon all of his supporters, including those from Jan 6th," Trump's ex-national security adviser John Bolton said on X, formerly Twitter, according to USA Today.
Trump similarly hinted that the pardon served as his permission slip. "Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?" Trump wrote on social media.
"Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!" Trump added. The left has no avenue to object to such a move after Hunter Biden's unearned pardon and the president's lies about doing so.
Understandably, Joe Biden wants his son to stay out of jail. What's wrong is that the president went back on his word about his intention before the election, a lie he likely told because of the political fallout that would come if he simply told the truth.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Citing Joe Biden's complaint, delivered while he was issuing a massive pardon to his son Hunter for crimes committed, about unfair prosecutions, lawyers for President-elect Donald Trump pointed to that very factor in a case involving the president-elect before New York Judge Juan Merchan and insisted it be dismissed immediately.
The case was brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and concerned business records from years ago. Those apparent violations would have been misdemeanors had they been brought before the statute of limitations expired.
But they weren't, so Bragg claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of another unidentified crime. It's described as the "hush money" case because it involved payments to a porn star for keeping claims of an affair private.
A report from Fox News said lawyers for Trump have demanded the case be dismissed "immediately."
"President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits this motion to dismiss the Indictment and vacate the jury's verdicts…," the lawyers wrote. "The Presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act, and the Supremacy Clause all require that result, and they require it immediately."
They noted Biden's claim that Hunter was prosecuted "unfairly" for his crimes, including gun charges on which he was convicted and tax violations to which he pleaded guilty.
"Yesterday, in issuing a 10-year pardon to Hunter Biden that covers any crimes whether charged or uncharged, President Biden asserted that his son was 'selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,' and 'treated differently.' President Biden argued that 'raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.'"
In reality, the charged, it was this "same DOJ that coordinated and oversaw the politically-motivated, election-interference witch hunts targeting President Trump by disgraced Special Counsel Jack Smith, the other biased prosecutors in Smith's Special Counsel's Office ("SCO"), and others. This is the same DOJ that sent Matthew Colangelo to DA Bragg to help unfairly target President Trump in this empty and lawless case. Since DA Bragg took office, he has engaged in 'precisely the type of political theater' that President Biden condemned."
Trump spokesman Steven Cheung charged, "President Trump and his legal team have filed a powerhouse motion to dismiss once and for all the unconstitutional and politically motivated Manhattan DA Hoax. This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed, as President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt."
The case proved to have one scandal after another, as Merchan repeatedly ruled against Trump as the judge's daughter was working with Democrats, raising money on the rulings her father made in the courtroom.
Further, the judge was known to have donated money to Democrats, and he refused to recuse himself despite the apparent conflicts of interest present in the case.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Local governments can call themselves sanctuaries and say they won't allow a federal program to deport illegal aliens within their boundaries.
But it's likely nothing more than talk.
Denver's mayor recently claimed not only his police but 50,000 residents would line up to prevent the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump from deporting illegal aliens found in the city.
He rashly said he'd go to jail over the issue, and Trump's new border czar, Tom Homan, said that's where the mayor would be sent if he persisted.
Now there's another precedent that affirms the incoming administration's authority to run such a program.
A report at the Center Square describes how a three-judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an attempt in Seattle by local officials to rein in deportation programs.
There, officials had ordered companies not to service airplanes being used for deportation during Trump's first administration.
The result is a ruling that the federal government can deport foreign nationals inside the U.S. illegally even over the objection of local authorities.
The report cited the ruling from Judge Daniel Bress, with judges Michael Hawkins and Richard Clinton concurring.
It was a 2019 executive order from King County Executive Dow Constantine that told county officials to ban fixed base operators on a county airfield near Seattle from servicing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement charter flights used to deport illegal foreign nationals, the report said.
The Trump administration at that time sued, citing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and other law.
The district judge ruled against Seattle, as has the appeals court now.
The ruling said the federal government had Article III standing to bring the action, and the injuries from the ban were traceable to the local officials' political agenda.
The local order, in fact, violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine because it "improperly regulated the way in which the federal government transported noncitizen detainees by preventing ICE from using private FBO contractors at Boeing Field, and on its face discriminated against the United States by singling out the federal government and its contractors for unfavorable treatment," the report said the court found.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Fani Willis, a local prosecutor in Atlanta, Georgia, who assembled her claims of an organized crime scheme against now President-elect Donald Trump and other defendants with the help of a paramour she put on a taxpayer-funded salary, now is in more trouble.
Her case, hanging on by a threat at an appeals court, is essentially the only case remaining against Trump after he was elected last month and multiple other lawfare cases were dismissed.
But now, Judicial Watch confirms that she's been found by a court in default after refusing to comply with the Georgia Open Records Act.
Judicial Watch had sought, through the state's legal process regarding records, to obtain information about Willis' coordination with "special counsel" Jack Smith, appointed by the Department of Justice to carry that part of the Democrat Party's lawfare against Trump, cases that now have been dismissed.
Also, records were sought about Willis' coordination with ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan January 6 investigating committee, which concealed exculpatory information about President Trump's involvement that day, and tried to portray the events as an actual insurrection against the U.S., when in fact it was a protest that turned into a minor riot with most of the aftermath involve repairs of vandalism.
Judge Robert C.K. McBurney in Fulton County Superior Court said Willis had a number of options in responding to the records case, but did "none of that."
"Plaintiff is thus entitled to judgment by default as if every item and paragraph of the complaint were supported by proper and sufficient evidence. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-55(a). Here, this means Plaintiff has established that Defendant violated the ORA by failing to either turn over responsive records or else notify Plaintiff of her decision to withhold some or all such records. In its complaint, Plaintiff sought the following relief: 1) a declaration that Defendant has violated the ORA; 2) an order for Defendant to search for all records responsive to Plaintiff's request without further delay; 3) an injunction ordering Defendant to cease withholding non-exempt public records responsive to the request; 4) an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-73(b); 5) a writ of mandamus, ordering Defendant to provide the requested records; and 6) any other relief the Court deems proper."
The judge wrote, "By finding Defendant in default, the Court has in effect declared that she has violated the ORA. The Court also hereby ORDERS Defendant to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials within five business days of the entry of this Order. Within that same five day period, Defendant is ORDERED to provide Plaintiff with copies of all responsive records that are not legally exempted or excepted from disclosure. If Defendant is required or decides to withhold all or part of a requested record, she should follow the procedures set forth in the ORA (see O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(d)). If the records are stored electronically, they may be produced electronically in a commonly used format such as PDF. The Court expects that such production will include the correspondence identified by Plaintiff in its complaint. If it does not, Defendant is further ORDERED to provide an explanation why such correspondence does not exist in Defendant's records (or why it is being withheld)."
Judicial Watch's request for fees and costs will be addressed during a Dec. 20 hearing.
Judicial Watch said its lawsuit, dating back to last March, came after Willis denied having any records responsive to the request for communications with Jack Smith and more.
The New York Post reported only days ago Willis' case against Trump isn't likely to survive much longer.
It noted her claims against Trump, accusing him alleged election interference in Georgia, likely will vanish soon.
The report said Willis "has remained defiant and ignored a subpoena in September from a special senate committee looking into the case, refusing to show up for a hearing when was supposed to testify. Last week, a Georgia appeals court abruptly canceled oral arguments scheduled for next month in the case and Trump's lawyers are likely cite the federal end to the election interference charges against him to get the Georgia case thrown out."
One Post source said, 'I would be shocked if it wasn't (dismissed) but Fani has an ego bigger than the entire state so who knows."
Willis appointed her then-paramour Nathan Wade as a special prosecutor in her case against Trump – and paid him hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.
He was ordered to leave the case earlier when a judge cited the appearance of impropriety in Willis' workings.
"Fani Willis is something else. We've been doing this work for 30 years, and this is the first time in our experience a government official has been found in default for not showing up in court to answer an open records lawsuit.," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
"Judicial Watch looks forward to getting any documents from the Fani Willis operation about collusion with the Biden administration and Nancy Pelosi's Congress on her unprecedented and compromised 'get-Trump' prosecution."
It's over and done with: President Joe Biden has pardoned his son Hunter Biden of any crimes he could possibly be charged with from his past actions, as well as granting him clemency from the two convictions he already faced.
All that's left now is to point out the fact that he and his mouthpiece, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, lied to the American people numerous times and said he wouldn't pardon his son--both when he was trying to get re-elected and after he stepped down as the Democrat nominee in 2024.
Jean-Pierre said as far back as July to Fox News reporter Mark Meredith that no pardon would happen.
At the time, the question was hypothetical, but when Hunter was indicted a few weeks later, she doubled down.
"So I've answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago — a couple of weeks ago — and I was very clear, and I said no," Jean-Pierre responded.
When nine counts of tax evasion came down from the DOJ, she got a little more vague.
"I mean, the president has said this before, and he will continue to say, which is that he loves his son and supports him as he continues to rebuild his life. And I'm going to be really careful to not comment on this and refer to Department of Justice or my colleagues at the White House counsel. But that's what I'm going to – I'm not going to go beyond telling you all what the president has said over and over again. He's proud of his son, and he is building his life back," Jean-Pierre said.
Going back to June, Biden said in his own words that he wouldn't pardon Hunter and would accept the federal gun trial against him.
Following up, Jean-Pierre said, "Yeah, so, look, as I stated at the top, I don’t have anything to say beyond — to your first question — beyond what the President’s statement was yesterday. He has been very clear. We’ve been very clear. You know, he — he loves his son. And he and the First Lady love their son, and they support their son. I just don’t have anything — certainly anything beyond that."
At the time, Biden was trying to get re-elected and didn't want it to look like he was trying to subvert justice.
In all likelihood, even if he did stay in the race and get re-elected, though, he would have pardoned Hunter anyway.
Hunter was set up on those charges to get the heat off his dad's alleged bribery and payoffs from foreign entities. He was clearly told to let the process play out and that he'd get pardoned at some point.
After all, Hunter knows exactly what his dad did, and could spill the beans if Dad let him hang out to dry.
As the Bidens fade into obscurity, will anyone even remember what the laptop and other witnesses like Tony Bobulinski say he did to the country he claims to have spent half a century serving?
Special Counsel Jack Smith's recent decision to drop all charges against President-elect Donald Trump has ignited widespread controversy and debates over his future and accountability.
The dismissal of charges against Trump by Smith has led to renewed scrutiny of the Special Counsel’s handling of the case, The Daily Caller reported.
On Monday, Jack Smith, acting as Special Counsel, officially terminated all legal actions against Donald Trump, who is set to be inaugurated as President. This move came as a surprise to many, sparking discussions across the political and legal spectrum.
Following the announcement, significant criticism emerged concerning the financial and procedural aspects of the prosecutions led by Smith.
Andrew Cherkasky, a former federal prosecutor, highlighted the immense costs involved—reported by the Department of Justice to exceed $50 million—and questioned the efficacy and strategy behind the prosecutions.
“Investigating the federal prosecutions against Trump is important because of the huge cost and ultimate failure,” Cherkasky remarked. He also expressed skepticism regarding the outcome of any further probes into Smith's conduct, doubting they would reveal criminal activity but pointing out serious flaws in his legal approach.
As Smith prepares to exit his role, there is ongoing speculation about the potential ousting of some members of his team from the Department of Justice. This transition raises questions about the continuity and impact of the investigations they spearheaded.
The Heritage Oversight Project, led by Mike Howell, has even prepared what they call a “model indictment” of Smith, suggesting he could be charged under laws designed to protect civil rights, which they claim he may have violated.
Mike Davis of the Article III Project strongly criticized Smith, calling for “severe legal, political, and financial consequences” for what he describes as “blatant lawfare and election interference.”
Smith's legal approach, especially his use of the conspiracy against rights statute against Trump, has been a point of contention. Critics like Cherkasky argue that this was a novel and ultimately flawed strategy that a reasonable prosecutor would have avoided.
Charles Stimson of the Heritage Foundation echoed this sentiment, stating, “Past is prologue here,” suggesting that Trump's administration may not focus heavily on pursuing charges against Smith. “I don’t think they’re going to spend a tremendous amount of time deciding whether Jack Smith, who will not be employed by the Justice Department, should be prosecuted,” Stimson noted.
The possibility of congressional action looms large as figures like Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and others have called for the preservation of all records related to the Trump prosecutions. This step is seen as crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability, particularly given concerns over political bias in the FBI, voiced by Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson.
The emphasis on maintaining a politically unbiased legal process has been reinforced by these lawmakers, stressing the importance of integrity in handling cases that have significant political implications.
Looking forward, it is unclear how much of a priority Jack Smith’s actions as Special Counsel will be for the incoming administration. Pam Bondi, tipped to be Trump’s next Attorney General, is expected to focus on issues such as crimes by illegal migrants and protecting free speech, potentially sidelining any immediate legal action against Smith.
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Texas could secure its border using razor wire and other barriers, Breitbart reported. This decision came after the Biden administration cut razor wire installed under Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the Lone Star State because it was "seeking only to safeguard its property" with these measures. It found that President Joe Biden's administration was improper in its insistence on stopping that effort.
Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, who ordered the measures in the first place, celebrated the ruling with a post to X, formerly Twitter. "The federal court of appeals just ruled that Texas has the right to build the razor wire border wall that we have constructed to deny illegal entry into our state. Biden was wrong to cut our razor wire.”
BREAKING: the federal court of appeals just ruled that Texas has the right to build the razor wire border wall that we have constructed to deny illegal entry into our state.and that Biden was wrong to cut our razor wire.
We continue adding more razor wire border barrier. pic.twitter.com/a1jLPvceLf
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) November 27, 2024
The court granted a preliminary injunction so that the federal government could no longer meddle in border security measures Texas implemented. The judges ruled in a 2-1 decision that, contrary to claims made by the Biden administration, the state was not trying to "regulate" the Border Patrol.
The majority opinion was written by Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, who was appointed by then-President Donald Trump. He wrote that the law provides "clear protections for property rights from government intrusion and control."
Duncan added that federal immigration officials may not "unnecessarily intrude into the rights of countless property owners." He was joined in this opinion by another Trump appointee, Judge Don Willet, who previously served as a Texas Supreme Court justice.
Not surprisingly, Biden's Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez was the lone dissenter on the three-judge panel. She wrote in her opinion that Texas inappropriately asserted a "virtual power of review" over federal immigration enforcement by taking action where the administration failed.
This ruling will now ensure the state's right to secure the border as it sees fit. It also allows private property owners along the border to do the same.
Under Biden, the border was overrun with illegal immigrants in places like Eagle Pass, Texas. The state took the brunt of it as a border state, and Abbott implemented Operation Lone Star to stem the tide through methods such as installing razor wire.
However, after the Texas National Guard installed over 100 miles of wire along the border at key crossings, Border Patrol cut down the wire in September 2023, Fox News reported. "Biden should be thanking Texas, not obstructing our efforts to secure the border," Abbott said.
"Joe Biden completely abandoned his constitutional duty to secure the border. Texas stepped up in his absence to build the wall, repel illegal crossings, and protect our country," the governor added.
Experts have found that the razor wire is effective in stopping illegal immigration by the crossing point by several miles. This additional impediment to an easy journey deters all but the most motivated.
This was a win for Texas and all Americans concerned about the impact of illegal immigration. With Trump coming into office next year, this will likely be just the start of the change.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawsuit has been filed against Kay Jewelers after a Christian employee was fired for talking about her faith with a co-worker.
Commentator Todd Starnes explained the situation had the markings of a "setup."
"The conversation happened in a back work area at a Kay Jewelers in Fairlawn, Ohio. The coworker continuously pressed (Mika) Cohen for her personal opinions about Pride Month. Finally, she explained that she is a Christian and shared her sincerely held beliefs on God's definition of marriage and sexuality," he explained. "A few weeks later Kay Jewelers launched a HR investigation into the conversation alleging her remarks were inappropriate."
Shortly later, she was fired.
"It certainly appears as though Cohen is the victim of a setup by a pro-LGBT staffer. To make matters even worse, it appears as though Kay Jewelers is anti-Christian. Diamonds may be a girl's best friend, but Kay Jewelers is certainly no friend to Christians," he said.
It is the American Center for Law and Justice that took on the case.
It said it is defending "an employee's right to express her religious beliefs," this time in Ohio.
Cohen was dismissed by Kay from her position as assistant manager in Fairlawn, Ohio, for sharing her Christian beliefs with a co-worker after repeatedly being asked to do so, the legal team said.
The law firm explained how the situation developed:
While working at Kay Jewelers in June 2023, Ms. Cohen's co-worker asked for her thoughts and opinions on a religious topic. Importantly, while Ms. Cohen's co-worker prodded Ms. Cohen's position on the topic out of the earshot of customers or other employees, Ms. Cohen politely attempted to avoid speaking on the subject completely by saying everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Nonetheless, the co-worker gave her opinion on God's creation of humanity and kept prodding Ms. Cohen to share her religious beliefs. After being pressured repeatedly to share her beliefs, Ms. Cohen finally shared her beliefs on the Bible's teachings.
The ACLJ confirmed there was "no quarrel or hostility," and the conversation ended shortly.
Then Cohen was informed by Kay that an investigator was looking into her "inappropriate discussions of religion at work.:
Then came her firing.
"No further explanation was given and no termination letter was provided – Ms. Cohen was simply told to pack up her things and leave," the ACLJ said. "This uncalled-for and unjust termination left Ms. Cohen and her family without insurance to cover medical necessities and much of the income upon which they relied."
Kay's parent company does, in fact, promote the leftist beliefs about "diversity, equity, and inclusivity" on its website.
"Clearly, this 'commitment' only applies to non-Christian beliefs that do not align with the Bible's teachings. Kay Jewelers' conduct in this case demonstrates no valid basis to fire Ms. Cohen, and its lack of transparency or accountability for violating Ms. Cohen's rights constitutes a blatant disregard for religious freedom and a demonstrative act of religious intolerance," the charges by ACLJ include.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In response to a student's objections to her school district's mask mandate during COVID, the district suspended her three times, told police to cite her for trespassing, and then had her arrested and jailed.
So of course she has standing to sue for the treatment, according to an appeals court decision.
It is the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees federal judges in Wyoming, that rejected and overturned a decision from Judge Nancy Freudenthal, who had dismissed the complaint from Grace Smith and her parents Andy and Erin Smith.
They sued the Albany County School District in August 2023 over its attacks over the mask demand.
Freudenthal claimed that Smith had no standing, so dismissed the action, a move that was reversed in a ruling from Harris Hartz, Gregory Phillips, and Allison Eid of the 10th Circuit.
According to a report from the Cowboy State Daily, the judges wrote, "We are not persuaded" by Freudenthal's claims.
The ruling explains when a government regulation forbids or requires some action by the plaintiff, she almost invariably can show she's been harmed.
"Grace has easily met the requirements for standing. She alleges that the defendants repeatedly punished her for opposing the mask mandate. They suspended her three times and requested that local law enforcement issue her two trespassing citations, arrest her, and take her to jail," the appellate judges noted.
Smith, now a former Laramie High School student, now can continue her court battle against the school.
The Cowboy State Daily report noted, "Smith had refused to wear a mask, had declined to take virtual instead of in-person schooling, organized a walkout in protest of the mask mandate, was suspended for three different two-day stints, and was ultimately arrested for trespassing while at school."
As a result of the school's demands, "Police officers arrested and handcuffed Smith, drove her to the police station, booked her for trespassing, then released her to her father."
She then withdrew from the school.
The report explains she has accused the school of violating her right to free speech by compelling her "to utter what was not in her mind" by wearing a mask.
Then, her claims include, there was retaliation by the school and a violation of due process.
On Monday, the federal prosecutor who oversaw the convictions of Sen. Robert Menendez, Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, and disgraced cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried announced his resignation as SDNY's U.S. attorney.
The prosecutor of New York City Mayor Eric Adams and rap superstar Sean “Diddy” Combs, Damian Williams, said, "It has been an honor to serve the American people." He will resign at 11:59 p.m. on Dec. 13, according to a report by CBS News.
The first Black man to fill the prestigious and influential position, Williams, was nominated by President Joe Biden in 2021. Trump has already spoken to his intention to replace the attorney.
The Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, once led by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, handles high-profile public corruption, securities fraud, and terrorism crimes.
Williams was instrumental in getting New Jersey's longstanding Democratic senator Robert Menendez convicted of bribery, FTX CEO Bankman-Fried convicted of fraud, and Maxwell convicted of sex trafficking while he was in office.
Adams is facing allegations of bribery and wire fraud, while Combs is facing a variety of counts, including sex trafficking and racketeering. Both individuals are currently awaiting trial. They have both entered not-guilty pleas.
An Iranian man was also under Williams' supervision earlier this year on charges related to a plan to kill then-candidate Trump.
As he announced his resignation, Williams used the term "bittersweet" to describe his time in the office.
“It is bitter in the sense that I am leaving my dream job, leading an institution I love that is filled with the finest public servants in the world," he said.
"It is sweet in that I am confident I am leaving at a time when the Office is functioning at an incredibly high level — upholding and exceeding its already high standard of excellence, integrity, and independence."
Edward Y. Kim, who was Williams' deputy, will take over as acting U.S. attorney once he leaves.
Earlier this month, Trump made public his intention to nominate Jay Clayton, his former head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to lead the office.
The 2020 candidacy of Trump's nominee Clayton was ultimately withdrawn due to resistance from Democratic senators from New York, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, as well as the circumstances surrounding the resignation of then-US Attorney Geoffrey Berman.
As he announced Clayton's possible nomination, Trump praised him as "a highly respected business leader, counsel, and public servant."
"Jay is going to be a strong Fighter for the Truth as we Make America Great Again," Trump wrote.