Donald Trump's epic re-election victory on Tuesday night saw him expand his popularity in the former swing state of Ohio, as Republicans flipped a Senate seat there and stormed the state's Supreme Court.
The GOP won all three state Supreme Court races, handing them 6-1 control starting in January. The bench is currently split 4-3.
Republican Justice Joseph Deters left his own Supreme Court seat to run for a full term against Democrat Melody Stewart - and won. Governor Mike DeWine (R) had appointed Deters, a former Hamilton County prosecutor, to fill a vacancy in 2023.
Another Republican, Judge Dan Hawkins defeated Democratic Judge Lisa Forbes to serve the remaining two years in Deters' open seat. Republican Megan Shanahan defeated Democrat Michael Donnelly to round out the GOP's sweep of the top court.
The expanded control will presumably give Republicans leverage on contentious issues such as abortion and election integrity. However, the victorious Republican justices pledged to follow the law, not prescribe it.
“I’m honored and grateful to the millions of Ohioans who have put their trust in me to be their Ohio Supreme Court Justice,” Shanahan posted on her campaign Facebook page.
“I’ll be true to what I campaigned on and will be a Supreme Court Justice who knows that my job is to interpret the law, not to make it. I’ll go to work each day and focus on protecting Ohio’s citizens, communities, and constitution.”
Ohio, a state Barack Obama won in 2012, has been shifting red since President Trump flipped the state in 2016. Trump lifted his vice president-elect, J.D. Vance, to a Senate victory in Ohio in 2022.
In another sign of Ohio's red shift, Trump-endorsed Bernie Moreno soundly defeated Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown on Tuesday.
With Republicans projected to win back the Senate, President Trump will have an opportunity in his second term to solidify the 6-3 conservative majority on the United States Supreme Court, which he pushed rightward during his first term.
Trump delivered a dominating performance nationwide on Tuesday, sweeping every battleground state and putting himself on the path to a popular vote victory.
Trump's commanding 12-point margin in Ohio was the largest of any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide.
President Trump's victory resonated throughout the Rust Belt as he secured a path back to the White House in the "blue wall" states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
When Democrats at the White House and in the Department of Justice assembled part of their lawfare campaign against President Donald Trump, a coordinated legal barrage involving multiple jurisdictions, many civil counts and a long list of alleged criminal actions, in one situation they simply picked a private lawyer and told him to go to it.
Since then Jack Smith repeatedly has assaulted Trump with claims of criminal actions, even to the point of making an attempt to work around a recent Supreme Court ruling that Trump has immunity for some acts by charging that Trump was acting "as an individual" while in office.
One court already has ruled that he was not properly appointed, and threw out the case he brought in that jurisdiction.
Now that fight is pending before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The American Center for Law and Justice reveals it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief that calls for Smith's disqualification from his legal campaign against Trump.
"We have fought back against Jack Smith's unlawful prosecutions before. We filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court, urging the high court to recognize that presidents are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in office. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's structure entitles the president to presumptive immunity from prosecution for official acts. In that case, Justice Thomas also wrote a scathing concurring opinion in which he questioned the validity of Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel: 'If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,'" the legal team explained.
It was in a Florida case that Judge Aileen Cannonruled Smith was improperly appointed. She then dismissed it, but Smith has gone back to court demanding that the charges be restored.
At that time, the ACLJ argued, "We welcome Judge Cannon's decision limiting the attorney general's authority to appoint a private citizen who has not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Such appointments must go through the confirmation process."
Cannon's ruling now is pending before the 11 Circuit, and the ACLJ explained he was never confirmed by Congress.
The brief makes several arguments, including that as special counsel, Smith is a principal officer of the United States, "which would require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation."
"Unlike inferior officers, principal officers must undergo presidential nomination and Senate confirmation – a process Smith has not completed."
The filing said that's because Smith "can only be removed for good cause, not at will," which limits the attorney general's authority, and he lacks meaningful supervision. Further, he has broad decision-making authority.
"Because of the level of authority that he has been given, special counsel Smith could only have been appointed by the president. He was not. Merely having a nominal superior does not automatically make someone an inferior officer, especially given the extensive independence granted to Smith."
Further, the ACLJ explained that Smith has been unable to identify "any statutory authority" that would allow AG Merrick Garland to hand him the power he says he has.
Attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs requested a gag order on a witness who claims there is video evidence of the rapper "victimizing" eight of his A-list friends, including two who were "underage," The Blast reported. The artist and producer is on trial for sex trafficking and other crimes.
Combs and his attorneys attempted to prevent witnesses from speaking about their testimony and evidence outside of the courtroom. One of those witnesses was longtime friend and Alter Ego Records CEO Courtney Burgess.
He has been sharing with the press about evidence and testimony, including that he has knowledge of video evidence of Combs' alleged crimes possibly involving minors. Burgess claims to either possess or have seen the footage on flash drives that Combs' girlfriend, Kim Porter, provided.
The footage was allegedly taken from hidden cameras in the home. Attorneys for Combs have dismissed these allegations as nothing more than an "extortion scam," and are seeking to shut down these discussions with a court order.
Burgess has been asked to turn over any video or photographic evidence to the grand jury. He has shared that the footage he received from Porter, with whom Combs shares four children, includes two male celebrities who "underage" at the time of the filming being victimized.
Disturbingly, these videos also purportedly show that the people were acting impaired, as if drugged or drunk, while engaged in the activity. Burgess claims that Combs, who has has known for more than 30 years, wasn't always like this.
"At the time, I guess he was ambitious. Then from ambitious [he] went to doing anything And then [he] from doing anything to didn't care about nobody - who he could beat," Burgess said of his longtime friend.
"And then he ended up turning into Lucifer. And today, I'm looking at him - I know you all call him Diddy or Puffy - I call him Lucifer," Burgess added.
Combs is currently behind bars at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He is facing charges such as racketeering, transportation to engage in prostitution, and disturbing allegations of sex trafficking.
The latest attempt at a gag order comes after another request was denied late last month, USA Today reported. One of the arguments came from an attorney for one of Combs' alleged victims.
Lawyer Douglas Wigdor argued that his client, Cassie Ventura, had a right to speak about her experience as a victim. Ventura has already settled her lawsuit over abuse, rape, and sex trafficking at the hands of Combs last year.
The attorney said that a gag order "inappropriately silence victims who are proactively seeking justice through the civil justice system." Wigdor also believes that Ventura has a right to rebut statements made about her in the press.
"The relief Mr. Combs seeks is particularly inappropriate given that his family and representatives have themselves made extrajudicial statements to garner the exact attention he claims he wants to diminish. These survivors and their attorneys should not be silenced and prevented from pursuing their claims publicly, or from speaking their truth, during the pendency of Mr. Combs’s criminal case," Wigdor added.
Combs' alleged victims deserve to have their say, especially if their names are being dragged in the press. The music mogul has a mounting list of allegations against him, and these feeble attempts to silence alleged victims will do nothing to help Combs in the end.
In a defeat for the Biden gun control agenda, a federal court in Texas has officially recognized the right to own bump stocks in light of the Supreme Court's ruling this summer that struck down an ATF rule banning the device.
U.S. District for the Western District of Texas Alan Ezra vacated the ATF rule in the case Garland v. Cargill, recognizing the "right to possess" bump stocks.
The case was brought by Texas gun shop owner Michael Cargill, who gave up his bump stocks following the Trump administration's ban.
In a ruling Monday, Judge Ezra declared that Cargill "has the right to possess and transfer non-mechanical bump stocks under federal law, and that the federal statutory prohibitions against the possession and transfer of machineguns…do not limit Mr. Cargill’s rights or legal relations in this regard.”
Cargill was represented by New Civil Liberties Alliance, which won a victory before the Supreme Court in the case this June. In the 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court recognized held that bump stocks are not machine guns under the National Firearms Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had previously ruled in 2023 that a bump stock ban requires an act of Congress, ordering Ezra to enter judgment in Cargill's favor. Ezra entered judgment but denied Cargill any relief.
After the Supreme Court's ruling, the Fifth Circuit vacated Ezra's denial of Cargill's motion and sent the case back to judge Ezra to "consider alterations to the judgment or other relief[]."
On Monday, the judge amended the final judgment to vacate the ATF's rule.
"Consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s instruction, the District Court has now altered the judgment to vacate the Final Rule and declared that Mr. Cargill has the right to own bump stocks under federal law," the New Civil Liberties Alliance declared.
“The Government’s attempt to limit relief to just Mr. Cargill would have left in place ATF’s rule that the Supreme Court said was unlawful, and each person would have had to separately challenge that unlawful rule to get the same relief. Fortunately, such a convoluted and burdensome process is unnecessary because the Administrative Procedure Act commands federal courts to ‘set aside’ unlawful rules, meaning vacate them for everyone in the country," Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, NCLA, said.
Hunter Biden complained about his massive legal bills at a high-end Hollywood party last week, Page Six reported. One guest overheard President Joe Biden's son lament that he has "$18 million in legal bills" and "cases hanging over my head."
The younger Biden has been rubbing elbows with the rich and fabulous in Los Angeles at cocktail parties. It turns out his favorite topic of discussion is his legal woes, which have turned into a financial nightmare.
The president's son was convicted of tax evasion to the tune of $1.4 million in September. He is awaiting sentencing, which should come in the next two months.
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden has also had to defend himself against federal weapons and drug charges after a bitter divorce and custody dispute. The financial fallout seems to be the only thing the 54-year-old wants to discuss now.
Hunter Biden has been sharing his complaints with A-listers in Los Angeles. "Hunter Biden was trying to explain his history and problems to guests at a party in LA," a source close to the matter shared with the gossip section of the New York Post.
"'I have $18 million in legal bills, and… my cases hanging over my head.’ He also talked a lot about his Ukraine and Russia connections saying, ‘all these stories were set-ups,'" the unnamed guest shared about Hunter Biden's choice of party chatter.
Even as he spews these complaints about a situation of his own making, Hunter Biden has become a fixture at such parties. "Oy vey, he’s become a very popular guest in the super-rich Hollywood cocktail party circuit where hosts are happy to have President Biden’s son in the room," the source said.
Until recently, entertainment attorney Kevin Morris was bankrolling Hunter Biden's defense. However, a person close to the matter told Politico in May that Morris has nothing left to lend the younger Biden now.
"The reason Kevin got involved financially in the first place was that he could see that no one was going to help Hunter. Now, four and a half years later, there’s still no help — and now Kevin is completely tapped out. So just when Hunter is facing two criminal trials starting in a few weeks, he has no resources. It’s pretty dire," the source said.
Although Morris can no longer help Hunter Biden, it seems he's not without assistance from a surprising ally. After President Biden had sworn not to pardon his son, former President Donald Trump said he was open to the idea if he should win on Election Day.
"I wouldn't take it off the books. See, unlike Joe Biden, despite what they've done to me, where they've gone after me so viciously ... And Hunter's a bad boy," Trump said late last month when asked about the possibility.
"There's no question about it. He's been a bad boy. But I happen to think it's very bad for our country," Trump said of jailing Hunter Biden.
With Joe Biden leaving office in a little more than two months, Hunter Biden will be without the protection of his father's powerful position. His legal and financial woes could just be beginning, but Trump's generosity may be the thing that saves him from what his Hollywood friends can't.
Watergate journalist Bob Woodward, who now writes for the Washington Post, predicted that President Joe Biden will pardon his son Hunter Biden before leaving office in January, despite saying repeatedly that he would not do so.
Hunter Biden will be sentenced next month on drug and gun charges, and faces tax charges in an upcoming trial.
Woodward said that research for his forthcoming book "War" revealed that the president's mind is frequently on Hunter Biden's future, and that he has talked about a pardon with close friends.
"He worries about, where is this going to go? He has said he would not pardon him. There are a couple of trials coming up. Quite frankly, I know enough about Biden I don't believe that. I think he will pardon his son," Woodward told The Late Show's Stephen Colbert.
Biden also has fears his son will relapse into drug use if he is sent to prison, or just from the stress of multiple trials.
Presidents have the ability to pardon or commute the federal prison sentence of anyone they want to, without restriction. It has even been suggested that former President Donald Trump could pardon himself from federal crimes if he is re-elected.
While Bill Clinton was president, he pardoned his brother Roger Clinton for a 1985 drug possession charge for which Roger had served one year in jail.
One drawback of a pardon is that Biden may harm his party's reputation and hurt chances in future elections.
But do we really think people will remember something that long, or care about it as much after some time has passed?
The American people have a relatively short attention span for negative political news or activity--maybe because there is so much of it.
No loving parent wants their child to go to prison, even if they deserve it.
It's likely that Trump would pardon his children if they were ever convicted of a federal crime, and would give as a reason that the charges were unfair.
While those who don't like Biden anyway will be angry that he let his son off the hook for a lot of bad things, others may understand that parental instinct to protect their children from harm.
Trump even said he could possibly pardon Hunter Biden, while noting that the First Son had been a "bad boy."
In a decisive blow to federal prosecutors, Judge Beryl Howell ruled against the Justice Department's effort to preserve felony obstruction charges against participants of the January 6 Capitol riot, Politico reported.
Judge Beryl Howell's ruling follows a Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of obstruction laws previously applied to the defendants.
On January 6, 2021, supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol in a chaotic effort to obstruct the presidential power transfer to Joe Biden. This day marked one of the most severe assaults on democracy in recent U.S. history.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling in June, determined that the use of the obstruction statute against these rioters was overly broad. Originally, over 300 defendants faced these charges before the high court's decision.
Following the Supreme Court's reinterpretation, the Justice Department retracted many of the obstruction charges, reassessing the remaining cases. They argued that charges could apply if it could be proven that the defendants intended to specifically disrupt the handling of Electoral College ballots by Congress.
In her ruling issued on a recent Friday, Judge Howell found no evidence to suggest the defendants intended to physically damage the electoral ballots, focusing instead on halting the certification process.
During the riot, Congressional staff swiftly secured the ballots, ensuring they were unharmed and available for the continuation of the certification process once the order was restored.
Judge Howell's decision, although not binding on other courts, carries significant weight due to her former role as chief judge and her respected position in the judiciary. This ruling could influence other cases involving similar charges against rioters.
She pointed out that the primary goal of the rioters was to stop the certification, not to damage the documents required for the process.
“To the contrary, the record amply shows defendants’ intent to stop Members of Congress from proceeding with the certification,” Howell stated.
Howell further clarified, “But Members are not evidence,” underscoring the misapplication of the law as argued by the government.
On the day of the riot, non-screened rioters flooded the Capitol, posing unprecedented security risks. Howell remarked on the protective actions taken by Congressional aides: “In the context of the overall catastrophic security breach posed by non-security screened rioters roaming Capitol corridors and rooms, the removal of the ballots from the Senate and House chambers preserved their availability for use in the certification process, rather than impaired that availability.”
She elaborated that the integrity of the electoral ballots was not compromised by the events, a point not contested by the prosecution. “No evidence suggests that the electoral ballots’ ‘integrity,’... was affected by the events on January 6, 2021, and the government does not argue otherwise,” Howell explained.
This interpretation by Howell stretches beyond a reasonable interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling, indicating a significant judicial pushback against broad applications of the law.
While former President Donald Trump completely reshaped the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court during his first term as president, different changes could happen on his watch should he win a second term.
According to Newsweek, some legal analysts strongly believe that conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will likely resign at some point if Trump wins the White House yet again.
The reasoning would be to allow Trump to appoint a younger conservative justice to take over his role on the high court, hedging against something happening to him during a future term under a Democratic president.
Some experts believe that Thomas could also choose to resign to exit the public spotlight, especially given the attempts by Democrats to hamstring him over ethical concerns.
Though Thomas hasn't hinted whatsoever that he's thinking of resigning under a second Trump term, Anthony V. Alfieri, a law professor at the University of Miami believes that he ultimately will throw in the towel.
He also believes Thomas would rather pursue other interests, such as teaching and lecturing instead of sitting on the high court's bench.
"In the event that former President Trump is reelected in November, both Justice Thomas' age and presumed commitment to preserving his 34-year legacy ... raise the likelihood that he will resign not only to pursue other interests, such as teaching, travel and lecturing, but also to escape the harsh light of ongoing criticism and investigation of his conduct on and off the court," Alfieri said.
Other legal observers, like Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, think that Thomas won't resign until a suitable, younger conservative is ready to replace him.
"Thomas will not resign unless Trump is in the White House and the Republicans control the Senate. Even then, he might prefer to remain because we know his position has come with a great deal of free and luxurious 'personal hospitality," Gillers said.
He added, "Others may financially encourage Thomas to resign in order to lock in a conservative successor, who can then sit for the next 40 years."
Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, 74, could possibly only have a two-year window to resign even if Trump wins the White House again.
That's because Democrats will have a chance in 2026 to win control of the U.S. Senate, which even under a Republican president, could block any conservative SCOTUS nominees.
"If the Democrats lose control of the Senate, but then regain control in 2026, no Trump nominee will be confirmed," Gillers explained.
Only time will tell if Thomas pulls the trigger on retiring under Trump, but one can be rest assured that unlike his liberal counterparts, he will make the best decision for America's future.
A Democrat North Carolina Supreme Court justice now faces an ethics complaint filed by top Republicans in the state.
According to Breitbart, the complaint was filed by multiple North Carolina GOP state senators primarily due to candidate Allison Riggs' pro-abortion campaign.
Riggs released a campaign ad that made it clear she's running on a pro-abortion ticket, which the state Republicans believe is a violation of ethics, to say the least, given that judicial candidates are not supposed to take a side on political topics.
The three state senators, Republican Sens. Buck Newton, Amy Galey, and Danny Britt, said Riggs' ad "blatantly violated" the ethics code set forth by North Carolina’s Judicial Standards Commission.
Riggs' bizarre and obviously pro-abortion ad attacked the state's Lt. Governor, and in it she proclaimed she would "fight" for women's reproductive rights.
The stakes in this election are high, especially for women like me. Since Roe was overturned in 2022, state courts now make critical decisions about access to healthcare.
I’m sharing my new ad, “Stakes,” because I want you to know I will always protect our freedoms. Pls. share! pic.twitter.com/6yGKUENZu4
— Allison Riggs (@AllisonJRiggs) October 23, 2024
The ad or her campaign in general obviously didn't sit well with the Republicans who filed the ethics complaint.
"As attorneys who value the integrity of our judicial process, it has become clear that Justice Riggs is guided more by the politics of winning an election rather than honoring the Code of Judicial Conduct," the three state senators wrote.
They added, "The Code prohibits any judicial candidate, regardless of the office they seek, from taking a position on any issue that may appear before their court."
"However, Justice Riggs is blatantly violating the Code," the GOP state senators continued. "She is currently running attack ads against Judge Jefferson Griffin, outlining her position on specific issues that may appear before the court while stating what she perceives to be her opponent’s position."
In the letter, the Republican state senators demanded a "full investigation" take place.
"If judicial candidates are allowed to run campaigns on legislating from the bench, then we legislators will need to take action in the upcoming session to prevent such a breach of judicial conduct from ever happening again," they wrote.
They urged the commission to monitor her actions during her campaigning.
Only time will tell if the state's judicial commission will take action, as she's seemingly violating the state's ethics standards.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped into a fight in Virginia, stopping a lower court's order that the state add some 1,600 noncitizens back onto the voter rolls.
Fox News reports the decision by the high court was to take up a challenge from Virginia on an emergency basis.
The lower courts had demanded that the state reinstate hundreds of noncitizens to the state's voter rolls.
"We are pleased by the Supreme Court's order today," the governor explained in a statement distributed on the situation.
The fight is over whether a process in the state, to remove people identified as noncitizens, often by their own identification, from voter rolls.
Meanwhile, the National Voter Registration Act bans "systemic" removals during a 90-day period before an election.
The Joe Biden Department of Justice had sued the state, among multiple attacks on election integrity laws it has launched in recent days, declining to recognize the state's process is "individualized" and meets the requirements of state and federal law.
The state had identified those on the voter rolls without citizenship and told them to prove their citizenship or be removed.
Virginia Attorney General Jason S. Miyares told the Supreme Court the NVRA does not extend to protections for 'self-identified noncitizens."
And he said the state's process is "individualized."
Meanwhile, attorneys general from all 26 Republican-led states joined Virginia in its fight in filing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, backing its assertion that the removal program was conducted on an "individualized" basis, and further, that the Justice Department's reading of the protections granted under NVRA are overly broad and do not apply to noncitizens.
It was a Biden-appointed judge, District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, who claimed that Virginia's state program to work on keeping its voter rolls clean was "systemic," not "individual."
Her claim is that because of her determination, the rolls were cleaned within 90 days of an election, and that's in violation of the National Voter Registration Act.
It was the Biden administration, which has run a program of open borders for the nation for nearly four years now, removing obstacles that would prevent illegal aliens from simply walking onto U.S. land and taking advantage of the multitude of social and financial benefits programs, that sued the state for trying to remove those who are not eligible to vote.
Youngkin's order requiring the updates of voter lists was based on a 2006 state law signed by Tim Kaine, a Democrat who then was the state's governor.