President-elect Donald Trump notched a victory Tuesday after the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office recommended Judge Juan Merchan freeze sentencing in the business records case, Breitbart reported. If granted, Trump's sentencing would be suspended for the next four years.
Attorneys for Trump sought to get the case tossed completely based on the flimsy premise of the case. However, it appears Trump will at least have a reprieve as he won't face sentencing during his presidency while in office.
"The people deeply respect the office of the president, are mindful of the demands and obligations of the presidency, and acknowledge that defendant’s inauguration will raise unprecedented legal questions. We also deeply respect the fundamental role of the jury in our constitutional system," prosecutors said to Merchan in the letter.
Unfortunately, without a proper dismissal, Trump may be fighting the battle for the next four years before ending with the Supreme Court. Still, his attorneys celebrated this as a win.
Even with movement in Trump's favor, there's no guarantee that the saga will be over for the president-elect. As noted by Ken Klukowski, Breitbart News senior legal contributor, this has the makings of a "trap" for Trump.
"On one hand, perhaps Merchan could see the handwriting on the wall. This lawfare was election interference, and it failed. Trump was elected to a second term in a modern landslide, with unified government," Klukowski reasoned.
"This prosecution was and is unlawful and so are the convictions, and this pause could be the first step in landing the plane. Bragg and Merchan have been beaten, and they should know it," he added.
"On the other hand, this could be an attempt to trap the president. Until Merchan enters final judgment in the case, there are only a few ways to get this case away from him and into a court that will follow the law," Klukowski said.
"If he could freeze the case where it is now, he could wait until after President Trump’s second term, then pull Trump back into his courtroom after January 2029 and attempt to imprison Trump as a private citizen for the rest of his life. The president has options, but only a few. And his lawyers are currently trying to exercise one such option," Klukowski noted.
The ball is now in Merchan's court regarding Trump's future. "Needless to say, all eyes will be on Merchan and his decision on Trump’s motions to set aside the convictions and on the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s push to freeze the sentencing until he leaves office," Klukowski said.
“This is a major positive development for President Trump. While the president still needs to have his invalid convictions reversed and the case dismissed, this now provides his lawyers with time to navigate," Klukowski explained.
The legal expert said that Trump's team has "breathing room" to appeal for the case to go to federal court where it's likely to be dismissed. Klukowski added that the delay "allows time for alternative moves if Merchan does not rule on the pending motions in a timely manner," a fact which helps Trumps cause.
"The president is out of imminent danger, and that was the most pressing item. President Trump is having a good day," Klukowski added.
It was clear from the start that the case was a political ploy meant to derail Trump's candidacy. Now that he's been elected to serve a second term, those who brought the case will have to decide whether it's worth continuing since it didn't serve its original purpose.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Editor's Note: This story has been updated to include that prosecutors say the lawfare weaponization wasn't "adjourned," but has been delayed.
A controversy has developed over Judge Juan Merchan's orders regarding the Democrats' lawfare case, run by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, against President-elect Donald Trump.
Merchan days ago had ordered a delay in case actions, and had told prosecutors to make a recommendation for the next step.
Then the court released a response to an email that cited the "adjournment."
It came just days after he ordered a delay in the case.
A report by Fox News pointedly noted that the court gave no "explanation" for the decision, stating, "The delayed sentencing came on the same day that District Attorney Alvin Bragg was slated to file a recommendation to Judge Juan Merchan on how to proceed."
The Fox report shortly later was changed to include that the DA claimed that reports "sentencing for 34 charges had been 'adjourned' was incorrect."
Fox said, "The wire was based on an automated schedule alert sent out by the court that stemmed from a court email from last week saying that all future dates had been stayed, according to the DA's office."
"This is a total and definitive victory for President Trump and the American People who elected him in a landslide," said Steven Cheung, Trump's communications director.
"The Manhattan D.A. has conceded that this Witch Hunt cannot continue. The lawless case is now stayed, and President Trump's legal team is moving to get it dismissed once and for all."
Trump's lawyers have called for the case to be vacated entirely.
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in July that presidents should enjoy presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for most actions taken as president, further complicating the path forward in the New York case," the Fox report said. "The high court ruled that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from any actions taken within the scope of 'core constitutional powers' as commander-in-chief. A presumption of immunity also applies to other actions taken while holding office, they said."
Trump has described the case as a politically motivated "witch hunt."
It was the Gateway Pundit that offered a perspective on the case, pointing out that Merchan has refused three times to excuse himself from the case even though his daughter was working with Democrats during the course of the trial, making money off of the rulings her father was making against Trump in court.
Further, the judge has been confirmed to have given money to Democrat candidates.
The Gateway Pundit added, "President Trump was STILL under a partial gag order in the case at the time. We are still wondering how this could be legal? And why were Republicans not outraged by this criminal lawfare against the party's presidential candidate?"
The case found Trump convicted, in the leftist Manhattan court, of 34 felony counts of business infractions, after being accused of paying porn star Stephanie Clifford "hush payments" through his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for her to keep quiet about her allegations of an alleged affair.
The 34 counts actually were business recording misdemeanors had they been brought before the statute of limitations expired on them. DA Alvin Bragg said they actually were felonies, and prosecuted Trump on them, because he said the misdemeanors were in pursuit of another unidentified crime.
Stunningly, the judge said the jurors didn't have to be unanimous for them to convict.
The report explained, "Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleged Trump committed fraud because the payment was labeled 'legal fees.' This was complete nonsense. No one has ever in history been indicted or convicted for such bogus charges. But we are talking about the cesspool New York and we are talking the communist left."
The case as one of many that Democrats' used in their lawfare to target President Trump. Those cases are disintegrating now at various paces, as federal practices do not allow the prosecution of a sitting president, and Trump is to be inaugurated on Jan. 20.
USA Today confirmed the case is "on hold."
"The sentencing was listed as adjourned on the New York criminal court docket as of Tuesday morning, after Judge Merchan paused all deadlines in the case earlier this month."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An elections judge in the Kamala Harris-supporting state of Minnesota is facing up to 10 years in jail and a fine of $20,000 if convicted on charges in an elections fraud case.
A report in the Federalist identifies the judge as Timothy Michael Scouton and explained he is accused of allowing unregistered individuals to vote.
The report said the Hubbard, Minnesota, County attorney's office has charged Scouton, 63, of Nevis, Minn., with one count of accepting the vote of an unregistered person and another count of neglect of duty.
He served as the head election judge in Badoura Township Precinct, in northern Minnesota, the report said.
A report for a wire service explained Hubbard County auditor Kay Rave was unable to find voter registration forms "among the ballots and other materials" submitted by Scouton.
Then, the complaint explains, "Another election judge told an investigator from the county sheriff's office that Scouton directed them not to use the registration forms" and "another said Scouton told them that "new voters needed only to sign the back of a book."
His next hearing in court is scheduled in January.
Scouton told the Federalist "while he would like to comment he has been advised not to."
In a statement, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon charged, "Election judges take an oath to administer elections in accordance with the law, a deliberate failure to do so is unlawful and a betrayal of the public trust."
In fact, the National Conference of State Legislatures reports Simon himself long has been an ardent opponent of basic voter identification laws in elections.
The Federal reported following the "irregularity-plagued" 2020 election, Simon told lawmakers, "This country has seen a tidal wave of disinformation about our democracy, about voting and about our last election. These are lies designed to manipulate and mislead people. So here is the truth: the truth is that the 2020 election was fundamentally fair, honest, accurate and secure. Period. State and federal courts around the country have examined and reexamined allegations to the contrary and found nothing — no material fraud or misconduct."
The Federalist report brought him up short with a blunt correction to that claim.
"That's not true. There definitely was fraud and other election law violations in the 2020 election, as there is in every election. Case in point, Abdihakim A. Essa. The Minneapolis man in 2022 'was accused of intentionally making or signing false certificates when submitting absentee ballots in Hennepin County,' according to the Heritage Foundation's election fraud database. 'Essa, a non-citizen, forged his father's signature as a witness on the ballots. He pleaded guilty to four of the thirteen counts, all state felony offenses. He was sentenced to 180 days in an adult correctional facility; all but 90 days of this sentence was stayed pending successful completion of 2 years of supervised probation. He was also assessed $78 in court costs."
Krista Knudsen, a Lake Shore, Minn., Republican in the state House, said, "I want to thank the Hubbard County Auditor for their work to catch this individual and for their vigilance in protecting the integrity of our election."
Knudsen said, "The status quo is not working, and we need to take action next session to address these problems."
There also have been allegations that during the 2024 election there were ballot printing issues, malfunctions and errors in counting, slow counting, missing ballots and more.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday took up a case that will decide whether top election official Meagan Wolfe can remain in her position despite not being reappointed by the commission or confirmed by the Senate after her term ended in 2023.
Wolfe has been Elections Commission Administrator since 2019, and her reappointment was deadlocked in a 3-3 vote by the commission.
This means it was never sent to the Senate, which could vote to confirm or fire her from the role.
Republicans have been trying to remove Wolfe since 2020, when President Joe Biden won the state by 21,000 votes.
There were numerous challenges to the 2020 vote count, but none of them were successful. Republicans seem to think that Wolfe, who is supposed to be non-partisan, favored Biden at the time.
Because no new administrator was appointed, Wolfe has remained in the role, but Republicans argued that she shouldn't be allowed to do so because she didn't go through the confirmation process.
The Senate in particular is upset about being left out of the process. Senate Republicans did vote to fire her, but it didn't mean anything because procedurally, it was out of order.
“Here the question is, can three commissioners essentially cut the Senate out entirely forever?” Misha Tseytlin, attorney for the Republican-controlled Legislature, argued Monday.
Liberal Justice Janet Karofsky didn't think much of the Republicans' argument.
She pointed out that the court already ruled, albeit when conservatives were in charge, that it was perfectly legal for state Natural Resources Board member Fred Prehn, a Republican nominee, to remain in his role when no one else was appointed.
“You are trying to thread a needle here that has no eye,” she said after hearing their arguments.
But Tseytlin pointed out that Prehn's position did not require the appointment of a replacement, while Wolfe's did.
The court has a narrow liberal majority, which occurred when Karofsky was elected in 2023.
The case could have long-reaching effects for Wisconsin electoral politics.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A war over the status of professional golf, specifically an alleged "monopoly" by the PGA in light of the appearance of industry newcomer LIV Golf, isn't over just yet, as a new case has been filed alleging fraud in the dismissal of the original antitrust action.
A circuit court in Miami-Dade County in Florida now has been asked to set aside the "fraud" that led to the "unlawful dismissals."
The new step has been taken by Larry Klayman, who has founded, in his career, both Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, and is a former federal prosecutor and a former Republican candidate for Senate in Florida.
He also was turned into an icon after inspiring a character on the television series "The West Wing."
He has announced a new lawsuit to set aside "fraudulently induced dismissals and the thwarting of discovery into and public disclosure of alleged anticompetitive acts by Tiger Woods, Rory McIllroy, the PGA Tour, the DP World Tour, Official Golf World Ranking ('OWGR') and NBC's Golf Channel by these defendants and their legal counsel in a consumer antitrust and unfair trade practice case."
That original case, Klayman et. al v. PGA Tour et al, had been launched more than two years ago.
The new allegations have been posted online.
The original dispute challenged the "monopolization" of professional golf by its corporations, the PGA Tour and its partner DP World Tour.
Klayman, who also was on the Department of Justice team that broke up the AT&T monopoly during the Reagan administration, alleged in the case that due to the defendants' anticompetitive conduct, he and other golf fans have been harmed due to the reduced competition, causing the price of admission tickets and concessions for and at PGA tournaments to increase greatly.
WND previously had reported Klayman charged, "Using the phony pretext of Saudi financing of the LIV Golf Tour (as the PGA Tour and DP World Tour also significantly benefit from a huge amount of Saudi and Arab/Muslim money) these defendants have flagrantly sought, through their anti-competitive actions, to harm Florida consumers who would attend PGA Tour and its admitted partner DP World Tour golfing tournaments and events, by suspending and fining professional golfers who were formerly on these golf tours, simply because they signed up to play in LIV Golf Tour tournaments and events."
In fact, at one point the PGA has confirmed plans to eject its members who may participate in the opposing tour.
Klayman continued, "The LIV Golf Tour, which was organized and is led by champion golf legend Greg Norman, is paying large competitive contract fees to big name professional golfers such Phil Mickelson, Brooks Koepka, Dustin Johnson, Bryson DeChambeau, Patrick Reed, Lee Westwood, Louis Oosthuizen, Kevin Na, and Talor Gooch, and a host of other prominent players. It is seeking to establish itself as a potentially significant competitor to the PGA Tour and DP World Tour, which these entities apparently will not tolerate."
He charged the PGA was trying to eliminate "a competitor."
Klayman explained that original case was "wrongfully dismissed by the Honorable Louis Delgado, after years of obstruction and delay caused by the defendants, and in particular legal counsel for not just the PGA Tour and its Commissioner Jay Monahan, but also counsel for PGA players and officials Tiger Woods, Rory McIllroy and Davis Love III, as well as furthered by Judge Delgado."
Among the accusations is that Delgado delayed the case, then dismissed it, "to avoid exposing Woods' illegal conduct to the public."
That apparently would be the PGA's pursuit of a monopoly.
Klayman explained, "In our country no one is above the law, even a golfing icon who admirably broke the racial barriers in the golfing world, Tiger Woods, who not coincidentally is a Florida citizen. This new case is regrettably a testament to the compromised state of our legal system, where fraudulent representations by defendants and their lawyers who are powerful in size, financially and have political and other connections, can influence if not coerce a judge to accept their false statements to avoid a detrimental backlash which could affect his standing and judicial career.
"I had to think hard before filing on principle this very strong case, at the expense of offending the otherwise likeable Judge Delgado, who sadly acquiesced to the alleged fraud on his court thereby shirking his ethical and legal responsibilities. Rather I intend to put paramount adherence to the rule law, as I want to 'Make Professional Golf Great Again,' for golf fans and consumers such as me, who, like our 45th and now 47th president, love the game and want to see real competition flourish for the benefit of all."
The case charges that the defendants simply manufactured statements that were not true in pursuit of a dismissal, and the judge "failed to do a due diligence or acted negligently," and when shown evidence of the fraud, refused to "take remedial action."
He noted the original case now is before the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
President Joe Biden's tenure in office has been marked by an unusually high number of losses at the U.S. Supreme Court, with another defeat added to the tally just last week.
As KTVB reports, Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador announced on Friday that the high court rejected a Biden administration emergency appeal of a lower court's decision in a key immigration policy.
At issue was an emergency petition filed by the Biden administration asking the Supreme Court to rule on the controversial immigration policy commonly referred to as “Parole-in-Place.”
The program was touted by the administration as a key component of its “Keeping Families Together” initiative, which sought to help noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens secure parole as a precursor of eventually achieving citizenship themselves.
In the wake of a lawsuit filed by Idaho, Texas, and more than a dozen other states, a federal court in the Lone Star State declared the administration's use of the policy to be unconstitutional.
In the aftermath of that ruling, the Biden administration sought relief from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to block the lower court's determination.
From there, the Biden administration sought emergency review from the highest court in the land, a move that was subsequently rebuffed.
In the wake of the high court's decision, Labrador issued a press release heralding the outcome and pledging to continue the fight against unchecked immigration.
The AG began, “The Supreme Court stopped the Biden Administration's latest attempt to skirt Congress and misapply our immigration laws for political ends.”
Labrador continued, “We cannot and will not abandon the moral position that the rule of law is integral to the survival of our Republic.”
The press release noted that the Parole-in-Place program was initially designed to permit illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.”
However, Labrador added, the program had been “contorted by the Administration which claimed 'unfettered discretion: to interpret and implement it, resulting in over 1.3 million individuals to remain in the country as a result.
The Supreme Court's decision could be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of a seismic shift when it comes to immigration, particularly amid news that former Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief Tom Homan has been named “border czar” for the incoming Trump administration, as Newsweek noted.
Pledging last week to, among other things, root out criminal gangs coming into the country illegally, Homan added, “As far as Tren de Aragua and MS-13...my gang's bigger than your gang, and we're going to take you out, too,” suggesting that “shock and awe” will be the order of the day as he helps “take this country back.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan is opening investigations into a reported flurry of political actions taken by President Joe Biden's lame-duck Department of Justice.
Jordan did an interview with Just The News on Friday and he raised the alarm about Biden's DOJ going wild with the limited time they have left before President-elect Donald Trump comes through to clean house.
One example that Jordan pointed out was the DOJ's targeting of Elon Musk and his companies after his overt support for Donald Trump’s campaign.
In fact, Biden's DOJ may have broken the law by sending a letter to Musk that essentially amounted to a threat from a federal agency against someone who was campaigning on behalf of a presidential candidate.
There are numerous other accusations of abusive antitrust inquiries as examples of potentially abusive DOJ behavior that may be the last gasp of the Biden administration to punish their political opponents.
Biden's DOJ has engaged in thuggery and intimidation against red states and conservatives for years but now they only have a couple of months before Trump is sworn into office and it will be game over for nearly everyone working there.
Jordan told JTN that, "This pattern of turning these agencies on the very people they're supposed to serve -- we the people, the taxpayers -- has been a concern from the get-go. We're concerned now with what they may be doing with the antitrust issue, going after companies as they're heading out the door."
Biden's DOJ was busy trying to stop Republican states from combating voter fraud and most notably tried to prevent non-citizens from being purged from voter rolls.
Jordan touched on this saying, "Of course, right prior to the elections, we saw the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department going after Virginia for simply keeping noncitizens from voting in our elections. Imagine that we got the same thing in Ohio, our Secretary of State was sent a letter three weeks before Election Day saying they were concerned about the good work he was doing. So we're always concerned about this. We're going to keep working.”
Jordan also wrote a letter to Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter warning him and the rest of Biden's DOJ that there political actions in the wake of the presidential election were inappropriate and would be punished.
Jordan stated, "We have received allegations that the Division sent demand letters to numerous businesses indicating an intention to start enforcement actions in the final days of the Biden-Harris Administration. With the American people clearly rejecting the failed policies of the Biden-Harris Administration, the Division's actions are inappropriate and inconsistent with the will of the American people."
With Trump making his return to the White House, federal agencies will be purged of leftists and other anti-American individuals who have targeted conservatives. Former Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) will be leading that effort.
Trump nominated Gaetz, who promptly resigned from his position in Congress, this past week and the announcement has already incited panic among both Democrats and establishment Republicans.
Gaetz himself has been hounded by Biden's DOJ and has a personal stake in clearing out leftists that used the Justice Department's power to target a political opponent.
Conservatives have been living in fear of Biden's DOJ for years and now that will be coming to an end. The leftists who corrupted our law enforcement systems for political gain will finally be held accountable for their actions.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Racism has become a popular agenda in America in recent years: There's the ultimate racism of Critical Race Theory agendas being taught in some schools, which states that all America is racist and the solution is more racism.
The "diversity" and "equity" agenda likewise has racist overtones.
But the blatant racism in a state program in Tennessee apparently is too much, and has drawn a lawsuit.
It is the Do No Harm association, a group of medical professions, who have filed, with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a lawsuit over the state's use of race in making appointments to state boards and commissions.
"State medical boards are given important responsibilities to oversee the quality of care in their state and the safety of patients," explained Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. "It is crucial that they be the most qualified physicians available. Like all aspects of healthcare, patient safety and patient concerns should be primary, not the skin color or the racial makeup of any oversight committee."
The problem is that Tennessee medical practitioners are under the purview of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners and its chiropractors are under the state's Board of Chiropractic Examiners.
"A state requirement for membership on both boards, however, has nothing to do with medicine or chiropractic care, and everything to do with race. Three separate state laws force the governor to consider race when deciding who can serve on these boards," the legal team explained.
"Tennessee law forces governor after governor to engage in racial discrimination when making appointments to state boards and commissions," said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Caleb Trotter. "Using race to make appointments to government boards is not only demeaning and unconstitutional, but it undermines the distinctive spirit of the Volunteer State by precluding opportunities for Tennesseans to serve their local communities."
The case also challenges racial quotas for Tennessee's Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners.
The foundation explains that it already had reported that more than two dozen states actually have in their laws similar unconstitutional discrimination.
The complaint, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, in Nashville, explains state law "requires the governor to prefer some potential board members over others solely on account of their race when making appointments to the Boards. Such blatant racial discrimination against individuals who could sit on Tennessee's Chiropractic Board or Medical Board serves no legitimate government purpose. It is demeaning, patronizing, un-American, and unconstitutional."
It explains the dilemma facing the state right now:
There is currently one opening on the Chiropractic Board for a licensed chiropractor. That seat became available on May 1, 2024, and currently has a holdover until a successor is appointed by the Governor and qualifies. The Chiropractic Board's other six members are all Caucasian. Thus, the Governor must consider a potential board member's race as a factor in making his appointment decision. Specifically, when considering who to appoint to the Chiropractic Board that is currently composed only of Caucasian members, the Governor must give preference to candidates who are a racial minority. In addition to the current vacancy, the Chiropractic Board is scheduled to have vacancies open for licensed chiropractors on May 1 of 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028.
It cites violations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and it seeks an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the racial quotas.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The state of Texas, like the rest of America, is confronted now with an exploding mental health and substance abuse crisis, with what has been called a "dire shortage" of professional social workers to help people cope.
So it banned two workers, grandmothers with master's degrees, from the industry, because they'd been involved in assault cases years ago when they both were fighting substance abuse problems.
And the state is getting sued over its restrictions.
It is the Institute for Justice that has sued the state on behalf of Katherin Youniacutt and Tammy Thompson, saying they should not be punished permanently for past mistakes during troubled times from which they have fled.
It is the Texas Constitution that protects Texans' right to earn an honest living in an occupation of their choosing without unreasonable government interference, and a state ban on them pursuing social work that appears to conflict.
"No one should be permanently barred from a job because of irrelevant criminal convictions," said IJ lawyer James Knight. "Katherin and Tammy made mistakes and paid for them. Permanently punishing them doesn't protect the public. It just makes it harder for people to pull themselves up and provide for their families. That's unconstitutional."
The substance abuse issues and related problems all came about more than a decade ago.
The institute said they have "turned their lives around and want to help people who have faced similar problems."
The lawyers noted it is a 2019 law adopted in the state that "permanently bars people with an assault conviction from obtaining a social work license," and that has destroyed plans by the two for helping people after the two worked on their dreams.
"Previously, the board in charge of licensing had the discretion to award licenses to those with convictions based on evidence presented to them. Now, its hands are tied, and even people like Katherin and Tammy with over a decade of good behavior and years of training must be categorically denied without a hearing," the IJ explained.
Youniacutt explained, "All I want is to help people so they won't make the same mistakes I did. Texas isn't just punishing me, it's punishing all the people I could be helping right now."
Thompson, in a statement released by her lawyers, said, "I've spent decades turning my life around and years preparing for the chance to work as a social worker. People should be able to prove they've moved on, but in Texas, the past is all that seems to matter."
The IJ said its work includes fighting those "permanent punishment laws" across the nation, and it already has handled battles in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Maryland.
A federal judge overseeing the exonerated Central Park Five’s defamation lawsuit against President-elect Trump has recused himself after it was discovered he had close ties to the plaintiff's lead attorney.
The Hill reported that U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson was asked to recuse himself by Trump's lawyers after it was discovered that Baylson and Shanin Specter, the Central Park Five’s lead attorney, had close ties.
Baylson and Specter have been friends since childhood and Specter had represented Baylson and his wife in legal matters.
This represented a serious conflict of interest and Baylson could not be trusted to function as an impartial judge in this matter and as such has recused himself from the case.
This led to a motion from Trump's attorney which read, "Defendant respectfully submits that a reasonable person would question the Court’s impartiality in this matter, and therefore seeks recusal."
Baylson, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, quickly stepped aside but interestingly he first consulted plaintiffs who declined to oppose his recusal.
This begs the question of what Baylson would have done if the plaintiffs had opposed his recusal. Would Judge Baylson have stayed on the case despite his close relationship with his plaintiff's lead attorney if the plaintiffs wanted him to?
However, thankfully this situation was avoided and the case will be assigned to a different judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The case was filed against Trump by the Central Park 5 in response to comments made by Trump during September’s presidential debate about the circumstances around the group’s wrongful conviction.
The Central Park 5 were found guilty of the 1989 rape and assault of a woman jogging in New York City’s Central Park in a case that shocked America for its brutality and violence.
Their conviction was overturned later but the circumstances around both their overturned conviction and the original case are still being debated. Trump pointed out how all five teens had "pled guilty” and they “killed a person ultimately” in a brutal rape.
Trump has long been vocal about the Central Park 5 and believes their conviction was wrongfully overturned thanks to political reasons. Now the Central Park 5 are doing their best to drag Trump into court on defamation charges.
The Central Park 5 are going to have serious issues dragging Trump into court now that he is the President-elect and will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States in January.
Like the other legal actions against Trump, his ascendency to the presidency all but crushes any hopes that his opponents had. Democrats launched multiple indictments against Trump all of which are in the process of winding down now that Trump is back in the White House.
Nonetheless, as the Central Park 5's case is a civil lawsuit not brought by the Department of Justice, this case could carry on for a while but is unlikely to be of consequence.