This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Facing a promise from President-elect Donald Trump that he'll be fired within "two seconds," special counsel Jack Smith, who prosecuted two of the Democrats' lawfare cases against Trump, is looking for an exit door.
It is Fox News that said Smith, who was tasked with prosecuting a government documents case and an election interference case against Trump, "is expected to resign before President-elect Trump is inaugurated in January."
Smith saw his documents case against Trump dismissed because he never was confirmed by the Senate, meaning he had no powers to bring the case, and he was trying to get it reinstated by an appeals court at the time of the election.
His election interference case claimed it was criminal for Trump to have expressed the opinions he held, and in it Smith was battling a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
Fox reported, "Smith has been evaluating how to wind down both the 2020 election interference case and the separate classified documents case before Trump takes office. That's a result of longstanding Department of Justice practice that says sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office."
Just days ago, Smith asked the court to cancel all deadlines in the election interference case, falling just short of requesting that the case be dropped altogether.
The report noted Smith is required under DOJ rules to provide a report on his work and an explanation of all charges – even without having either case go to trial.
The report said he's already told "career prosecutors and FBI agents" who were being paid by taxpayers to work on the Democrats' lawfare to plan their own exits.
The Washington Examiner explained Smith's goal is to not "leave any significant part of his work for others to complete."
The DOJ's stunts in the cases included an FBI SWAT raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in which agents allegedly rifled through the belongings of Melania Trump.
"Since Trump's win last week, Smith has been in the bull's-eye of Trump allies who view him as part of the establishment and the head of their idea that Democrats have weaponized the justice system against the former president," the report said.
WND reported only days ago that members of Congress have ordered Smith to preserve and protect all documentation and communications regarding his cases.
For examination by Congress.
It was House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., who leads the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, who ordered Smith to protect and provide all documents and communications "relating to meetings between FBI and Justice Department officials sent to or received by Jack Smith prior to the execution of the search warrant on President Trump's private residence."
They also want documents and communications referring or relating to the hiring and selection of current and former Office of Special Counsel staff members and the same regarding the "Office of Special Counsel, the Office of the Attorney General, or the Office of the Deputy Attorney General referring or relating to the investigation and prosecution of President Donald Trump."
"The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing its oversight of the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Counsel. According to recent public reports, prosecutors in your office have been 'gaming out legal options' in the event that President Donald Trump won the election. With President Trump's decisive victory this Counsel may attempt to purge relevant records, communications, and documents responsive to our numerous requests for information. The Office of Special Counsel is not immune from transparency or above accountability for its actions," the letter warned.
"This letter serves as a formal request to preserve all existing and future records and materials related to the Office of Special Counsel's investigations and prosecutions of President Trump. You should construe this preservation notice as an instruction to take all reasonable steps to prevent the destruction or alteration, whether intentionally or negligently, of all documents, communications, and other information, including electronic information and metadata, that are or may be responsive to this congressional inquiry. This instruction includes all electronic messages sent using official and personal accounts or devices, including records created using text messages, phone-based message applications, or encryption software."
Reports have confirmed already that Smith has spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on his agenda against Trump.
Special counsel Jack Smith and his staff intend to resign prior to the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
The Justice Department's longstanding stance is that it is prohibited from charging a sitting president with a crime, as The New York Post reported. Consequently, Smith's office has been assessing the most effective approach to conclude its work on the two outstanding federal criminal cases against president Trump.
Smith's resignation was initially reported by The New York Times.
The imminent question in the weeks ahead is whether Smith's final report, which delineates his prosecution decisions, will be disclosed prior to Inauguration Day.
According to rules set down by the Justice Department, the office of the special counsel must submit a confidential report to the office of the attorney general, who has the option to make it public.
During a radio interview in late October, Trump stated that he would promptly remove Smith from his position as special counsel if he were to be re-elected.
“It’s so easy — I would fire him within two seconds,” Trump said, adding that he got “immunity at the Supreme Court."
It is also possible for the incoming attorney general to opt not to make public Smith's final report.
Smith and his colleagues had continued to advance their case against Trump for election involvement prior to his re-election last week. However, a federal judge presiding over the investigation granted the special counsel's office an extension until December 2 to determine the next steps following Trump's victory.
Last year, Trump was indicted by the Justice Department for his attempts to revoke the 2020 presidential election.
However, the Supreme Court's decision in July of this year that Trump enjoys immunity for certain activities he committed as president and the early appeals from Trump's legal team both worked to hinder Smith's case.
A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment in the case after Smith's team reworked the indictment in August, excluding certain material that the high court had deemed off-limits.
In Florida, the DOJ had also filed charges against Trump for allegedly keeping secret records after leaving office and refusing to return them.
In July, however, the case was dismissed by a federal court that ruled that Smith's appointment was unlawful. We are still reviewing that matter.
In response to the former president's initial indictment, Smith promised a speedy trial. However, in both instances, Trump's legal team managed to postpone proceedings, and during his campaign, Trump frequently criticized Smith in public and on social media.
The Arizona Supreme Court declined to extend a deadline for voters to fix errors with mail-in ballots.
The top court's ruling came as the state's Senate race was called for Democrat Ruben Gallego, marking the second major defeat for Republican Kari Lake.
On the other hand, voters in the state chose President-elect Donald Trump over Democrat Kamala Harris.
Trump's win is a reversal from 2020, when Joe Biden became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win Arizona since the 1990s. Biden narrowly flipped Arizona by about 10,000 votes.
While Trump won by a comfortable margin of about 180,000 votes this time, Lake lost her race by about 70,000.
This year's election results were tallied much faster than in 2020, but the nation was still waiting on Arizona and Nevada until the weekend. Both states make heavy use of mail-in voting.
Left-leaning groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, made a request Saturday to Arizona's Supreme Court to allow more time to "cure" mail-in ballots with errors. The petitioners asked for a four-day extension, arguing thousands of voters could be disenfranchised by delays in ballot processing.
Justice Bill Montgomery, however, said there was no evidence that voters were denied a "reasonable" opportunity to fix their ballots, which is required by state law. The court found that election officials in eight of the state's 15 counties had adequately informed voters of issues with their ballots.
"The Court has no information to establish in fact that any such individuals did not have the benefit of 'reasonable efforts' to cure their ballots," Montgomery wrote.
Lake, a former news anchor, became a rising star on the right in the 2022 midterms cycle, when she lost a close race to Governor Katie Hobbs (D).
Lake never conceded the race, which she alleged was impacted by malfeasance with ballot printers that disenfranchised Republican voters on Election Day. Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected Lake's final appeal in her effort to challenge her 2022 defeat.
Ruben Gallego, a Marine vet and Democratic congressman, has defeated Lake for the open Senate seat vacated by Kyrsten Sinema. Lake has not conceded the race yet.
Republicans also failed to flip Senate seats in Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan. But they still regained the U.S. Senate and kept the House, leaving President-elect Trump with a "trifecta" to pursue his agenda in January.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A New York judge who heard a lawfare case against President Donald Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has ordered a delay on all proceedings, even though sentencing was scheduled just days away, instead telling prosecutors to file comments with the court for "appropriate steps going forward."
The case that was heard by Judge Juan Merchan, whose daughter was making money promoting Democrat talking points while her father was ruling against Trump in a courtroom, stems from business actions that would have been misdemeanors had they been filed before the statute of limitations expired.
But Bragg claimed they still could be prosecuted, and even that they were felonies, because of some other unspecified crime to which they contributed.
The jury, which was astonishingly told by the judge that their decision didn't have to be unanimous, was from the leftist enclave of Manhattan and returned a guilty verdict to 34 counts.
The trial reached the level of tabloid headlines because former porn star Stormy Daniels testified about payments made to her by Trump's former legal representative.
The case is one of multiple lawfare cases brought against Trump by Democrats in order to try to prevent him from running for president in 2024 or winning.
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.
Merchan earlier had delayed the sentencing in the case until after the election, just won by Trump in a landslide.
At that time, constitutional expert and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said that the delay likely was because Trump's popularity rose with each development in the courtroom.
At the time, Turley said, "Any sentencing that Merchan would have come down with, I think, would have not been particularly welcome by most of the public. It would have reminded them of this campaign against the former president."
Turley pointed out that Merchant had taken steps that made him appear one-sided, including an "excessive" gag order on Trump.
The jury claimed Trump falsified business records relating to reimbursing his then-attorney Michael Cohen for a nondisclosure agreement with Daniels.
Democrats have demanded that Merchan imprison Trump in the case, as part of their lawfare against him.
The judge also has a confirmed record of donating money to Democrat ideologues.
Trump's lawyers have called for dismissing the case entirely.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A case has been brought to court in Texas by state Attorney General Ken Paxton against a doctor who is accused of handing out puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children as young as 12 – all in violation of state law.
A report in the Washington Stand documents the case being brought against Hector Granados, of El Paso.
"Granados unlawfully treated 21 patients with testosterone or puberty blockers to transition their biological sex or affirm their belief that their gender identity is inconsistent with their biological sex in violation of SB 14," according to the new court filing.
"Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, when used to transition a child's biological sex or affirm their belief that their gender identity or sex is inconsistent with their biological sex, interfere with a child's normal physical development and result in long-term harm to the child."
LGTB ideologies have permeated the U.S. since Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have made promoting those ideas, especially the theory of transgenderism, a top priority for their administration.
The consequences for children given the "treatments" include "sterilization, loss of bone density, and the development of irreversible secondary opposite sex characteristics," the case charges.
Texas lawmakers in 2023 adopted a law that protects minors from harmful, life-altering medical maneuvers.
The law was allowed to take effect after a challenge that reached up to the Texas Supreme Court, which threw out constitutional concerns.
But, the report noted, "It seems that medical profiteers in Texas would not sacrifice their golden goose so readily. After Texas Children's Hospital in Houston publicly discontinued its gender transition program in 2023, it continued to secretly provide gender transition procedures to minors, according to the testimony of two independent whistleblowers. The first whistleblower now faces a politicized federal indictment, while the second was abruptly fired in August."
The report noted the state law allows the state attorney general to sue to enforce the law, and Paxton used that provision to bring the case.
The Stand noted Paxton just weeks ago brought a similar action against a physician in Dallas, May Lau, for similar behaviors.
In an announcement about the fight, Paxton said, "Texas is cracking down on doctors illegally prescribing dangerous 'gender transition' drugs to children. State law forbids prescribing these interventions to minors because they have irreversible and damaging effects. Any physician found doing so will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
Granados is accused in the fight of falsely diagnosing seven minors with "precocious puberty" then "falsely" billing insurance for that circumstance "when, in fact, he was treating the patients 'for gender dysphoria,'" the report said.
The state is accusing Granados of deceptively misleading pharmacies, insurance providers, and patients "by falsifying patient medical records, prescriptions, and billing records to indicate that office visits and prescriptions written to minor patients are for precocious puberty when, in fact, they are to transition their biological sex."
Granados also is accused of treating 14 biological females" to transition the minor's biological sex…"
All of that constitutes "false, misleading, or deceptive practices," the state charges.
The Stand commented, "Cases like this underscore the importance of enforcement provisions in state laws addressing gender transition procedures for minors. Although 26 states have passed legislation that aims to protect minors from gender transition procedures, only 10 states — less than half — allow the attorney general to enforce the law through civil litigation, as Paxton did here (four more allow criminal litigation)."
After President Trump's historic comeback, will there be pardons for the January 6th prisoners? Some who were convicted over the Capitol riot are already preparing for that possibility.
Multiple January 6th protesters have asked the courts to pause their cases as they await a potential reprieve from the president-elect, the Daily Caller reported.
Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump often defended the January 6th participants as patriots who have been treated unfairly by the justice system.
Over 1,5000 people have been charged in the Justice Department's investigation, and more than 1,000 have already been sentenced. Trump has floated pardons for some of those who entered the Capitol, many of whom were non-violent.
“I am inclined to pardon many of them. I can’t say for every single one, because a couple of them, probably they got out of control,” Trump told a CNN town hall in 2023.
Lawyers for Christopher Carnell, a non-violent offender, cited a hypothetical pardon in a request to delay a November 8 hearing. The judge shot it down.
"Mr. Carnell, who was an 18 year old nonviolent entrant into the Capitol on January 6, is expecting to be relieved of the criminal prosecution that he is currently facing when the new administration takes office," his lawyers wrote.
January 6th defendant Mitchell Bosch, while seeking a trial delay, argued he could face retaliation over Trump's re-election from a jury in overwhelmingly Democratic Washington D.C. That request was also shut down.
Meanwhile, Trump has received a pardon from the voters, who chose to send him back to Washington with a resounding mandate despite his alleged role in starting an "insurrection" on January 6th, 2021.
The judge in Trump's "election interference" case pressed pause Friday after a request from Jack Smith, who is expected to drop his prosecutions against President-elect Trump.
The Biden Justice Department has dropped some charges against January 6th defendants after the Supreme Court rebuked the DOJ for stretching a federal obstruction statute to charge hundreds of Trump supporters.
Trump told the National Association of Black Journalists in July that he would "absolutely" pardon those who are innocent, adding, “They were convicted by a very tough system."
“President Trump will make pardon decisions on a case-by-case basis,” Trump's campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to the Daily Caller.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The 2024 election was held in America in the shadow of months, even years, of Democrats making wild claims about how democracy would die under a Donald Trump presidency.
How he'd never leave office, how he'd become a dictator, how he'd use the government and military against his political enemies, much like the Democrats weaponized government against him when they were in office.
But an expert is pointing out that the election actually provided a new period of protection for one of the critical components of America's representative government, which actually is a republic.
The looming threat to that "democracy" actually was Democrat plans to destroy the Supreme Court in its present form, and establish something that rubber-stamps leftist ideologies at will.
Democrats had proposed "packing" the court with more leftist justices to provide a Democrat majority, and other changes. Even dissolving it.
"The election means that court-packing schemes are now effectively scuttled despite the support of Democratic senators like Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.). Given Kamala Harris's reported support, the Supreme Court dodged one of the greatest threats to its integrity in its history," explained constitutional expert Jonathan Turley.
"In this way, the election may prove the key moment in ending one of the most threatening periods of the court's existence. With the loss of the control of the Senate, the push for new limits on the court and calls for investigations of conservative justices will subside for now."
The election, especially the new Republican majority in the Senate, means "the court will remain unchanged institutionally for at least a decade," he said.
Leftists have been enraged in recent years over the several decisions, including the one by the court that the faulty Roe v. Wade case that created out of thin air the federal "right" to an abortion was wrongly decided.
The decision returned regulation of the nation's lucrative abortion industry to the states.
Turley explained, "The expectation is that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas could use this perfect time to retire and ensure that his seat will be filled with a fellow conservative jurist. Justice Samuel Alito may also consider this a good time for a safe harbor departure. They have a couple of years before they reach the redline for nominations before the next election."
He said the election results' impact on the law also will "be pronounced."
"A younger generation will grow up in a country where the voters of each state are allowed to determine what limits to place on abortions. Likewise, gun rights and religious rights will continue to be robustly protected. The checks on the administrative state are also likely to be strengthened. Pushes for wealth taxes and other measures will likely receive an even more skeptical court," he said.
He noted liberals previously had pushed for leftist Sonia Sotomayor to retire, giving way for a younger leftist replacement, and he opposed that idea.
But that effort, along with the "end the filibuster" campaign, he said, likely ended "around 2:30 am on Tuesday night."
He pointed out that the three justices previously appointed by Trump "are extraordinary jurists who have already created considerable legacies."
The left will continue to abuse Trump nominees during confirmation hearings, as happened for his previous choices, "but they will have a reliable Senate majority for confirmation," he said.
"In this way, the election may prove the key moment in ending one of the most threatening periods of the court's existence. With the loss of the control of the Senate, the push for new limits on the court and calls for investigations of conservative justices will subside for now," he said.
The "rage" among media and academia, however, will only likely grow.
They probably will "become more activist and aggressive" since voters declined to follow their agenda, instead choosing to "reject panic politics and radical agendas."
He said for how, the Supreme Court "will remain the key stabilizing institution in the most successful constitutional system in history."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Jack Smith, the Democrats' "special counsel" who has brought multiple charges and cases against President Donald Trump as part of the party's lawfare against him, now wants a delay.
Smith has brought several cases against Trump, some relating to his opinions about the 2020 election results, and handling of paperwork as he left the White House after his first term.
But he's hit a complication: The fact that Trump won the presidential election in a landslide, and federal Department of Justice policy prohibits cases against a sitting president.
Just the News reports now that Smith signaled on Friday he may end the Jan. 6 election interference claims, when he asked the judge to delay any action in the case so he can consider options.
His submission said the DOJ "respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance."
He said he wants to review "the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy."
Just the News explained the DOJ has had a long-standing policy against any prosecution of a sitting president, and "sources told multiple news outlets this week DOJ was looking for a way to wind down the prosecution."
Smith most recently claimed to Tanya Chutkan, the leftist judge hearing the case, that a Supreme Court decision confirming immunity for many actions while presidents are in office didn't apply to Trump.
Trump's response was typically blunt: "Deranged Jack Smith, the hand picked Prosecutor of the Harris-Biden DOJ, and Washington, D.C. based Radical Left Democrats, are HELL BENT on continuing to Weaponize the Justice Department in an attempt to cling to power."
Trump also has said Smith won't have his job more than "two seconds" after Trump becomes the 47th president, in January.
Specifically, Smith asked that the court "vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule."
Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel to investigate whether criminal charges should be filed against Trump in November 2022 just one day after Trump announced a 2024 White House run. But Smith never obtained Senate confirmation as would have been expected for that post.
Reports confirm he has spent some $50 million of taxpayer money to claim that Trump committed offenses.
Jack Smith is finally dropping his prosecutions of Donald Trump after his stunning re-election victory, bringing an end to a failed effort to deny Trump a second term with lawfare.
The move is "based on longstanding Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot face criminal prosecution while in office," sources told ABC News.
The Biden Justice Department appointed Smith in November 2022, the same month that Trump launched his historic comeback campaign. Smith brought charges against Trump last summer for allegedly stealing classified documents and conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump repeatedly criticized Smith as a "deranged" political operative of the Democratic party, as Smith furiously pushed to bring Trump to trial and secure a conviction before Election Day.
When that effort failed, Smith shared a filing in his "election interference" case in October, sparking pushback from Trump and others who said Smith was meddling with the presidential election.
Smith is now in talks to wind down his prosecutions into the former and future president, who won a stunning popular mandate from voters on Election Day despite the efforts of Democrats to paint him as an aspiring dictator and "convicted felon."
While Smith had no problem trying to block Trump from returning to power, Smith is facing the reality that he simply can't prosecute a sitting president.
In addition to the Justice Department cases, Trump has also been harassed by Democratic prosecutors in New York and Georgia.
An election interference case in Georgia was derailed by prosecutor Fani Willis' highly publicized workplace romance, which raised a conflict of interest and an ongoing effort by Trump to disqualify her.
Trump is also facing a sentencing on November 26 in New York over his conviction for "falsifying business records" in his "hush money" case involving Stormy Daniels.
Trump has threatened to fire Smith on day one of a second Trump administration, but it appears Smith wants to pre-empt that possibility.
"We got immunity at the Supreme Court. It's so easy. I would fire him within two seconds. He'll be one of the first things addressed," Trump told radio host Hugh Hewitt last month.
Democrats thought they could stop Trump by weaponizing justice, but now true justice is being served, and Trump is getting the last laugh.
The recall that was directed toward the chief prosecutor in Alameda County was successful on Tuesday night, which has the potential to deal a blow to the principles of progressivism in the criminal justice system across one of the bluest areas in the state of California.
District Attorney Pamela Price became the first elected district attorney in the history of Alameda County to be recalled from office, according to the unofficial final results that were provided by the county early on Wednesday morning, as Breitbart News reported.
Even left-leaning locals disapproved of Price, a prosecutor supported by George Soros, for implementing "criminal justice reform" policies.
Even though city and county election officials are still counting ballots cast on Election Day, voters have expressed their support for removing her from office less than two years into her first six-year term. However, it may take several days for the final results to be certified because of the continuation of the counting process.
Price's self-proclaimed "exclamation point in history" as the first Black woman elected to the post ended in a historic whimper with the election of the next president.
Alameda County Board of Supervisors, which consists of five members, will be saddled with the responsibility of picking a replacement to serve until the next general election, which will take place in 2026.
As a result of Oakland's adoption of policies that "defund the police," the city's crime rate increased to the point where Price's own laptop was taken from her vehicle.
Also, Price was accused of engaging in nepotism after she hired her boyfriend despite reservations regarding his previous employment history.
On Tuesday, her counterpart in Los Angeles County, George Gascón, was defeated in his bid for reelection by significant proportions.
In June of 2022, voters in San Francisco also recalled the radical District Attorney Chesa Boudin, which was the first indication of a backlash in the state.
Prop 36, which overturned many of the most problematic "reforms" of Proposition 47 of 2014, which is generally criticized for increasing crime, particularly retail theft and looting, was approved by voters across the state of California with an overwhelming majority.
According to a report that was released prior to the election, there are seventy-five radical left-wing prosecutors who are connected to a rich Democrat mega-donor.
Over the past few years, Soros has been spending an enormous amount of money to elect individuals who advocate for "criminal justice reform" around the country.
This is the first report of its kind to place such a significant amount of emphasis on Soros's role, and it was compiled by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF).
When the role that Soros played in these elections was first reported during the election cycle of 2018, the Los Angeles Times identified 21 races in which he was involved. The newspaper also suggested that he might have been involved in a much larger number of races that were difficult to identify due to laws that protect the identities of donors to nonprofit organizations that are permitted to engage in limited political activity.