Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called on embattled New York City Mayor Eric Adams to resign, Breitbart reported. Adams and several officials surrounding him have been under investigation for corruption.
On Wednesday, Ocasio-Cortez posted to X, formerly Twitter, calling for Adams to step down because of the investigations. "I do not see how Mayor Adams can continue governing New York City," she wrote.
"The flood of resignations and vacancies are threatening gov function. Nonstop investigations will make it impossible to recruit and retain a qualified administration. For the good of the city, he should resign," Ocasio-Cortez concluded.
I do not see how Mayor Adams can continue governing New York City.
The flood of resignations and vacancies are threatening gov function. Nonstop investigations will make it impossible to recruit and retain a qualified administration.
For the good of the city, he should resign.…
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 25, 2024
Over the last year, the FBI has raided the homes of several New York City officials as part of a probe into Adams' "2021 campaign." Those officials included New York City Deputy Mayor of Public Safety Philip Banks and New York City First Deputy Mayor Sheena Wright.
Other raids have already resulted in the resignations of New York City Schools Chancellor David Banks and New York City Health Commissioner Ashwin. Still, even after Ocasio-Cortez's post gained traction, Adams shot back in a statement that he wasn't going anywhere.
He mentioned race and vowed to stay in office despite the investigations. "For anyone who self-righteously claims people charged with serious crimes should not be in jail to now say that the second Black mayor of New York should resign because of rumors and innuendo — without even a single charge being filed — is the height of hypocrisy," Adams claimed.
"I am leading this city to protect it from exactly that kind of phony politics. The people of this city elected me to fight for them, and I will stay and fight no matter what," he added.
Unfortunately for Adams, it seems he might not get that chance after all. The day following this back-and-forth with Ocasio-Cortez, the New York Post reported that an indictment against Adams was unsealed.
The mayor's words ring hollow following the release of the 57-page indictment document alleging he received $123,000 in inducements from foreign nationals. "In 2014, Eric Adams, the defendant, became Brooklyn Borough President," the document stated.
"Thereafter, for nearly a decade, Adams sought and accepted improper valuable benefits, such as luxury international travel, including from wealthy foreign businesspeople and at least one Turkish government official seeking to gain influence over him." The indictment laid out the scheme whereby these kickbacks bankrolled Adams's lifestyle.
"As Adams’s prominence and power grew, his foreign-national benefactors sought to cash in on their corrupt relationships with him, particularly when, in 2021, it became clear that Adams would become New York City’s mayor. Adams agreed, providing favorable treatment in exchange for the illicit benefits he received," the indictment said.
Adams was treated to "free hotel rooms, flights on Turkey’s national airline, and meals at high-end restaurants." All he had to do in return was remove any red tape in building the Turkish Consulate.
In a development that rocks Congress, Ocasio-Cortez may be right on an issue for once. If these allegations are true against these officials, Adams and all of his Democratic cronies need to go.
Marcellus Williams, convicted of the brutal 1998 murder of former newspaper reporter Lisha Gayle, is scheduled to be executed after the U.S. Supreme Court and Missouri officials declined to intervene. Despite growing doubts about his guilt and opposition from the victim’s family and local prosecutors, Williams' final appeals were rejected, setting the stage for his execution by lethal injection.
Williams has maintained his innocence for years, citing evidence that he claims does not link him to the crime, but courts and officials have consistently ruled against him.
Williams, now 55, was convicted of the murder of Lisha Gayle, who was found stabbed 43 times in her suburban St. Louis home in 1998. Gayle, a former social worker and newspaper reporter, was attacked during a burglary. Despite the brutal nature of the crime, Williams has long asserted that key pieces of evidence—fingerprints and a bloody shoeprint found at the scene—do not match him.
On Monday, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, rejecting Williams’ appeal, while Governor Mike Parson declined to grant clemency. The U.S. Supreme Court also dismissed two separate appeals, with objections coming from three justices, including Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.
While Williams’ conviction has been upheld through several appeals, concerns have arisen about the fairness of the trial and the evidence used to convict him. The Midwest Innocence Project and St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell have both questioned the strength of the case, leading to efforts to stop the execution.
One of the key issues in the case is the DNA evidence. New tests show that the DNA found on the murder weapon does not belong to Williams, but instead to members of the prosecutor’s office. Despite these findings, Williams’ attempts to block his execution have been unsuccessful. The Missouri Supreme Court previously rejected a plea deal that would have commuted his sentence to life in prison without parole.
Further controversy surrounds the jury selection process during Williams’ trial. Prosecutor Keith Larner admitted during a hearing that he removed at least one Black juror because the juror "looked like" Williams. Larner struck six out of seven Black prospective jurors, resulting in a nearly all-white jury—11 white jurors and one Black juror—raising concerns of racial bias.
Tricia Bushnell, one of Williams’ attorneys, highlighted this issue in the appeals process, stating, "We have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay Marcellus Williams’ execution on Tuesday based on a revelation by the trial prosecutor that he removed at least one Black juror before trial based on his race."
Opposition to Williams’ execution has come from multiple directions. Lisha Gayle’s family, who were deeply affected by the crime, have voiced their support for clemency. In the clemency petition, the family expressed that they do not believe Williams’ death is necessary for closure. “The family defines closure as Marcellus being allowed to live. Marcellus’ execution is not necessary,” the petition reads.
St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell has also been vocal about the doubts surrounding Williams’ guilt, calling the punishment inappropriate given the lingering uncertainty. "Even for those who disagree on the death penalty, when there is a shadow of a doubt of any defendant’s guilt, the irreversible punishment of execution should not be an option," Bell stated.
Despite these calls for clemency, Missouri Governor Mike Parson remained firm in his decision. "Nothing from the real facts of this case have led me to believe in Mr. Williams’ innocence," Parson said in a statement explaining his refusal to intervene.
The rejection of these appeals marks the third time that Williams has faced execution. In both 2015 and 2017, stays of execution were granted amid questions surrounding the case, but no such relief has been extended this time. Unless there is a last-minute intervention, Williams will be executed on Tuesday evening, becoming the third person executed in Missouri this year.
Williams’ case has drawn attention not only to the questions surrounding his conviction but also for the broader trend of executions in the U.S. This week alone, five inmates across several states are scheduled to be put to death, reflecting a sharp rise in executions.
Despite the looming execution, advocates for Williams continue to push for clemency. They argue that with questions over the integrity of the DNA evidence, potential racial bias in the jury selection, and the unusual support from both the victim’s family and local prosecutors, Williams’ execution is both unjust and unnecessary.
Kentucky voters will choose a new justice for the state's 5th Supreme Court district this November, the Kentucky Lantern reported. Democrats and Republicans are sharply divided on the candidates despite their lack of official political affiliation.
The court will have a vacancy after Chief Justice Laurance VanMeter announced he would not seek another term. Early voting begins on October 31, with the candidates facing off for the position on the court.
Eight counties encompassing Central Kentucky will participate in the election, with the culmination of the race on Election Day. The candidates are attorney Erin Izzo and deputy chief Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Pamela Goodwine.
In Kentucky, judges are nonpartisan. However, Izzo has received backing from local Republican groups and an endorsement from the Clark County Republican Party. Goodwine has received a nod from Kentucky Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and other prominent Democrats.
Judges are prohibited from giving their opinions on cases in advance, but the support they're receiving from the respective parties makes it clear where they stand. "I have been a registered independent since I became a judge, and I am known for continually displaying a strong work ethic along with honesty and integrity to ensure justice for all," Goodwine claimed.
"My strong reputation for upholding these values along with my 25 years of dedicated service as a judge has earned me respect from all parties. I have staunch supporters from all parties and welcome and accept invitations from all parties to participate in their events," she added. Still, her strongest supporters are Democrats and their donors.
Meanwhile, Izzo has courted support from voters of all stripes, noting she thinks it "would be dangerous for Kentucky" to add partisanship to the judge's race. "I think as a candidate, there’s not much I can do with my supporters in terms of who’s going to give endorsements and who’s not," Izzo said.
"It doesn’t surprise me, honestly, that Beshear came out and endorsed her given her political leanings. And it doesn’t surprise me that the Clark County Republicans came out and endorsed me because of their political leanings," Izzo added.
Izzo has also promised to be an originalist in her jurisprudence. "I look at how things are, what the intention of the founding fathers were with our Constitution, and that kind of carries over to what legislative intent was when a law was adopted," Izzo said.
While it's important to hear from Izzo, what's more telling is what her enemies say about her. On Planned Parenthood's voter information website, they smear Izzo because for her "extremist" support.
"The end of Roe v. Wade was just the beginning for those determined to take away our control over our bodies and medical choices. But this election, we have the power to push back," the abortion provider claimed.
"We need leaders who are unapologetic and unafraid to join us in the fight to take back control of our families, our bodies, and our future. This election, we decide," Planned Parenthood went on.
"Erin Izzo has a history of supporting extremist organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, LGBTQ+ rights, and reproductive freedoms, including abortion and in vitro fertilization (IVF)," the organization charged. Of course, this sounds like a list of her greatest achievements to actual conservatives.
The people of Kentucky will get to choose what kind of court they will have. Either they will elect an originalist like Izzo or someone like Goodwine, who the state's leftist governor endorsed.
Top Democrat Jamie Raskin (Md.) is launching a pre-emptive effort to obstruct a second Trump administration by limiting the impact of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.
Raskin's "No Dictators" initiative draws inspiration from the top court's July ruling that found U.S. presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
At a press conference with former Republican Joe Walsh, Raskin called on Congress to "defend the constitutional order" against aspiring despots - a clear allusion to Trump, whom Democrats have painted as a threat to democracy.
"It is up to Congress, the representative branch of the people, to defend the constitutional order against presidents who would trample the freedoms of the people," Raskin said.
Raskin's declaration does not mention Trump by name, but its "five pillars" plainly echo charges that Democrats have levied at him.
"It's got five main pillars to it – one, limiting the president's power to declare bogus domestic and foreign emergencies to seize power and bypass congressional authority," Raskin said.
As president, Trump declared a national emergency to build his border wall.
Raskin also calls for "restricting the president's ability to use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military domestically against the people," and preventing the adoption of "loyalty tests" to purge the civil service.
Finally, Raskin is calling for presidents who commit crimes to be "prosecuted like all other citizens" and for presidents to be restrained from prosecuting their political opponents.
The Supreme Court's immunity ruling derailed the Biden Justice Department's January 6th case against Trump, who has accused Democrats of weaponizing government against him.
Democrats claim the Supreme Court placed Trump and future presidents "above the law." But the court's majority cited the separation of powers and concerns about making U.S. presidents fearful of prosecution by their political rivals.
While Raskin's declaration appears to be largely symbolic, he told Fox News Digital that he hopes to turn it into legislation if Democrats win control of the House in the fall.
"I hope that when we get back in, that we will be able to have at least a couple of serious hearings about the problem of overreach in the executive branch and weakness to potential tyrants and despots and dictators," Raskin told Fox News Digital.
"I hope that those hearings would lead us to create a legislative package to address these structural deficiencies in our statutory system."
Raskin's continued characterization of Trump as an aspiring dictator comes despite Trump surviving two assassination attempts in a matter of months.
Raskin helped push the effort to block Trump from the ballot, which was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
In shocking comments, Raskin suggested Congress would need to risk "civil war conditions" and disqualify Trump if he wins the election.
And they say Trump is the threat to democracy...
Former President Donald Trump's would-be assassin, Ryan Wesley Routh, allegedly penned a letter that included a promise of $150,000 to anyone who will "complete the job," Breitbart reported. The Justice Department released the letter's contents to the public, which outraged the Trump family.
Routh showed up at Trump's Palm Beach golf club on Sept. 14 with a rifle and other paraphernalia. He was near where Trump was about to play through when the Secret Service apprehended him.
Thankfully, Routh never got the chance to fire a shot at the former president. However, his damage wasn't quite done after the Justice Department released contents of a letter he purportedly penned to the public.
"This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, but I failed you…I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster," the 58-year-old said in his handwritten letter. "I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job," Routh wrote.
It's not surprising that the ramblings of a crazed gunman included such a promise. However, it is unfathomable that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' administration would allow it to see the light of day in the press.
Donald Trump Jr. railed against this decision, especially since Harris is his father's political opponent in the 2024 presidential election. The younger Trump also compared it to the way the government handled the manifesto of Audrey Hale, who shot and killed three children and three adults at a Tennessee school last year.
His motives are unknown folks!!!! DOJ releasing this in a week but not the trans killer manifesto for months isn’t signaling anything.
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 23, 2024
"WTF!? Why is Kamala's DOJ publicizing Ryan Wesley Routh putting a bounty on my dad's head???," Donald Trump Jr. wrote.
"His motives are unknown folks!!!! DOJ releasing this in a week but not the trans killer manifesto for months isn’t signaling anything," the younger Trump wrote in a follow-up tweet. Portions of Hale's manifesto leaked to the press confirmed that she was gender-confused and raised suspicions about authorities' reluctance to release it.
This was the second attempt made on Donald Trump's life, and the DOJ isn't being too careful about preventing a third. Former Attorney General William Barr said there was no reason to release Routh's letter "other than to risk inciting further violence," he told Fox News in an exclusive.
The letter, which was addressed "Dear World," was in a box that Routh had entrustd to a friend. "I was dumbfounded that the DOJ made public this morning the contents of the letter that, Ryan Routh, left with an acquaintance prior to the attempted assassination of former President Trump," Barr said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
"The letter calls on people to ‘finish the job’ of killing President Trump, attempts to rouse people in incendiary terms to do so, and offers $150,000 to anyone who succeeds. There was no apparent justification for releasing this information at this stage," Barr, who served under Trump and George W. Bush, went on.
"Even if DOJ thought it important to provide the letter to the court, it could have redacted inflammatory material or arranged to have the letter submitted under seal. It was rash to put out this letter in the midst of an election during which two attempts on the life of President Trump had been made," Barr later continued.
These attempts on Trump's life have so far been unsuccessful. Releasing a call to arms that comes with a reward is all but asking for a third attempt to be successful.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A large part of the political world in the United States, for years already, has been the "lawfare" schemes created by Democrats and leftists.
That's the use of legal cases, with or without evidence, to attack President Trump.
They have used the campaign, unsuccessfully, to try to make sure he could not run for the White House this year.
They've included wild claims about his business operations, his comments, his post-presidential activities and more, and he's expressed confidence that ultimately he'll come out a victor, as the prosecutors, the judges and even the jurors were biased.
He has evidence to support that, as a couple of the prosecutors who created cases against him ran for office on the public proclamations that they would "get" President Trump.
Now, longtime commentator Megyn Kelly, a lawyer, has destroyed the idea that the campaign is anything but a conspiracy against Trump.
She recently was a speaker at the All-in Summit in Los Angeles, where she was a panelist for which host Jason Calacanis brought up all of Trump's "guilty" results or "convictions."
The point that he was trying to make was that the campaign against Trump couldn't be a "conspiracy" because it's come from different prosecutors, different judges, different jurisdictions.
"Calacanis not only demonstrated his ignorance of the law but also set out to condemn Trump as guilty of bogus crimes in three cases (E. Jean Carroll, the Trump Organization, and the hush money trial)," explained a report in the Gateway Pundit.
But Kelly called him out, corrected his wrong assumption that Trump was "guilty" in civil cases, and "hammered home the corruption of each case in rapid-fire fashion to a stunned host."
Kelly, who took her law degree from Albany Law School in 1995, said that the cases are "100%" conspiracy against Trump."
"(In the) E. Jean Carroll (case Democrats) changed the law so that they could bring a civil lawsuit against him. New York went 87% for Joe Biden, and that fix was in place from the start.
"The fraud trial that Letitia James brought against him has never been brought before. There are no victims. The banks involved didn't lose a penny. Nobody was complaining except Tish James, who ran for office, saying, 'I will get him.'
"Then you have Alvin Bragg, a George Soros-funded prosecutor who doesn't like to prosecute any crime in New York City except if your name is Donald Trump!
"Let's go down to Georgia. Fani Willis and Nathan Wade couldn't keep their libidos in check long enough to bring this case against Donald Trump. It's a repeat of what was happening in the case of Jan. 6 with Judge Chutkan, who loathes Trump and has sentenced almost every J6 defendant to more jail time than any of her counterparts," she said.
"Those cases are falling apart because of presidential immunity that was handed down by the Supreme Court…Those cases have been gutted. And that leaves us with Florida and the documents. And Trump has torn that apart because Jack Smith was not properly appointed and is not the right counsel…They haven't even gotten to presidential immunity there so that one is going nowhere. They're going to appeal (Smith's appointment) up to the 11th Circuit of Appeals, and it's conservative, and thank God, so is the current Supreme Court. They're not going to tolerate that nonsense."
The facts are that the leftists did change a law so E. Jean Carroll could bring an otherwise-barred civil case against Trump, at which he was found not liable for her allegation of rape, but liable for sexual abuse. His lawyers on appeal have charged besides the law change, the case "is a textbook example of implausible allegations being propped up by inflammatory, inadmissible" evidence.
James brought a business deals case in which the judge decided on his own that Trump should be liable for a judgment of hundreds of millions of dollars for practices described by witnesses under oath as ordinary business practices. The institutions the judge claimed were defrauded said they were not defrauded and wanted to do more business with Trump.
Alvin Bragg took allegations of business reporting misdemeanors and claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of another crime, which wasn't identified. That jury convicted Trump, but in doing so violated a legal requirement that they be unanimous all on parts of their verdict.
In the Willis-Wade fiasco, the prosecutor Fani Willis, assembled an "organized crime" case against Trump by paying her boyfriend, Wade, hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.
It's falling apart on appeal.
The case being handled by Judge Chutkan was facing all sorts of headwinds because of the Supreme Court's immunity decision.
And the last case, over government documents Trump apparently had after his presidency, revealed the absolute weaponization of the DOJ, as Joe Biden was given a pass for essentially the same offense.
Further, the prosecutor, Jack Smith, was hired by the DOJ but never was confirmed by the Senate, as required.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats and other leftists have been demanding changes at the Supreme Court since President Donald Trump appointed three justices, all relatively conservative, taking away a majority liberals had held for decades.
Some extremists have gone way over the edge of reality.
Recently Panos Anastasiou, 76, of Alaska, was indicted for threatening to torture and kill six of the justices, presumably the conservatives.
Another suspect, Nicolas Roske, 28, will be on trial next year for trying to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Even a political icon like Sen. Chuck Schumer took his turn attacking and threatening the court – verbally at least.
He said, at a rally promoting the deaths of unborn children, "I want to tell you, [Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you, [Brett] Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price."
But now the attacks on the court appear to be coming from inside, and not just from a clerk or other employee who might have violated ethics codes and prematurely released the opinion that overturned the long-held but faulty Roe court opinion from 1973 that created a federal right to abortion without having any grounding in the Constitution.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University," said that was "one of the greatest reaches of ethics in the court's history.
But it gets even worse.
Now, he said, "the New York Times has published highly detailed accounts of the internal deliberations of the court. The account seemed largely directed at the conservative justices and (Chief Justice John) Roberts."
"Some of the information on deliberations in three cases (Trump v. Anderson, Fischer v. United States, and Trump v. United States) had to come either directly or indirectly from a justice. Some of these deliberations were confined to members of the court," he noted.
That means someone on the court, likely a liberal justice, is actively trying to manipulate the court to obtain some undefined results.
He warned the new information that was leaked "could only have originated with a justice."
Controversial decisions, like abortion, on which the court has ruled, have cut significantly until the public's approval of the court, and not even half view the justices favorably.
However, Turley said, there are those who want to express their criticism in a bigger way.
Besides the criminal cases, and the threatening Schumer rhetoric, he pointed out some have suggested cutting of the court's air conditioning to "make them retire."
The result is that Roberts now has to deal with leaks "coming out of the confidential conference sessions and memoranda of the justices."
The result, he explained, could be that case decisions could be manipulated.
The critics have discussed a mandated code of ethics, in which "lower court judges" effectively would be able to judge the justices, even order them off of cases.
Two of the leftist judges, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Jackson, have endorsed the idea.
However, such judgments could "flip the outcome on a closely divide court," Turley pointed out.
"The court is now in an undeniable crisis of faith," Turley warned. "For decades, institutional faith and fealty have maintained confidentiality and civility. Once again, that tradition has been shattered by the reckless and self-serving conduct of those entrusted with the court's business."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A trial date has been scheduled on July 20, 2026, for a case triggered by shooting death, by a police officer, of Ashli Babbitt, one of the protesters who went to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to protest the decision by Congress to legitimize the presidential election victory for Joe Biden.
Michael Byrd, then an officer with the U.S. Capitol Police, shot and killed her while she was inside the building.
His fatal attack came, apparently, with no warning or notice.
The group said Judge Ana C. Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia scheduled the date, and confirmed a request may be made to move the case to California, where Babbitt's family lives.
"Ashli Babbitt's family is relieved Ashli's case is moving forward to trial on all fronts," Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch, said. "They seek justice and accountability for Ashli's violent and lawless death at the hands of U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Byrd."
The violence happened on January 6, 2021, as supporters of President Donald Trump opposed the certification of Biden's victory.
Babbitt was among members of a crowed trying to get into a U.S. House room near the actual chamber.
The case charges, "Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashli before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as female. Ashli was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty, and in plain view of Lt. Byrd and other officers in the lobby."
Further, it charges Byrd was not in uniform and did not identify himself as an officer.
Babbitt, 35, owned and operated a pool business with her husband, but traveled alone to Washington to attend a rally featuring President Trump at the time.
WND previously reported the judge earlier refused to dismiss the case.
Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch, said, "Ashli Babbitt's family is thrilled the $30 million wrongful death lawsuit for her outrageous killing is moving full speed ahead."
After she was shot, the FBI opened a criminal investigation of Babbitt and at the same authorities refused to prosecute Byrd for the shooting.
Americans were stunned and horrified earlier this month when former President Donald Trump was targeted in yet another assassination attempt, this time at his golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida.
In a rather interesting legal twist, according to Politico, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to the Second Amendment could present complications when it comes to prosecuting Ryan Routh, the man suspected of targeting Trump.
The highest court in the land has recently weighed in on a series of cases related to the proper scope and interpretation of the Second Amendment, including challenges to a law currently being used to prosecute Routh.
As Politico notes, as a result of his conduct at the Trump International Golf Club, Routh has been charged with violating a federal prohibition on felony possession of firearms.
Routh's criminal history includes a conviction from North Carolina stemming from his possession of a “weapon of mass destruction” as well as another for possession of stolen goods, and, as such, his possession of a firearm at Trump's golf course has triggered the use of the aforementioned federal law against him.
However, recent battles that have made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court have brought into question the validity of the felony firearms ban, one which has the potential to bring upwards of 15 years in prison to those convicted.
Particular debate has centered on the high court's decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, one which has had far-reaching implications since its issuance.
The Bruen majority offered a more expansive definition of rights under the Second Amendment by finding that restrictions on gun ownership withstand constitutional scrutiny only if they are in keeping with historical practices with respect to firearms in America.
As such, conflicts have emerged among lower courts attempting to apply the Bruen precedent in gun possession cases, with two federal appeals panels having determined that using the felon-in-possession ban in the case of those convicted of non-violent felonies is a violation of their constitutional rights.
By contrast, other appeals courts have come to the opposite conclusion, including the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, the panel that would ultimately have jurisdiction in a potential appeal lodged by Routh in the future.
The divergence in opinion across the federal circuits, however, suggests that eventual Supreme Court review of the question is, in the words of UCLA law professor and Second Amendment expert Adam Winkler, “only a matter of time.”
While it is clear that there may be some contentious legal wrangling ahead with regard to the federal felon-in-possession statute, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis believes that accountability for Routh could more directly be pursued at the state level, and he has therefore initiated his own probe of the events at Trump's golf course, as he explained in a press release last week.
DeSantis issued an executive order “directing Florida's law enforcement agencies....to investigate the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, refer violations of state law to the statewide prosecutor's office for prosecution, and to surge resources to President Trump's security detail needs in coordination with the former president and the Secret Service.”
Though the Florida probe will run concurrently with the federal probe of the alarming event, DeSantis declared, as The Hill noted, that he does not believe it is in “the best interest of our state or our nation to have the same federal agencies that are seeking to prosecute Donald Trump leading this investigation, especially when the most serious, straightforward offense constitutes a violation of state law but not federal law,” and in light of the ongoing uncertainty stemming from Bruen, he may well be correct.
Michigan politics is in an uproar, particularly surrounding the state's high court, which has become one of the most dramatic scenes among state supreme courts across the country.
According to The Midwesterner, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s political action committee is throwing big piles of cash at Democratic Michigan Supreme Court candidates in an effort to stack the court with as many Dems as possible.
The conflict is controversial because the state's high court is currently overseeing cases related to her office.
Many believe it's a clear attempt to ultimately gain favorable rulings by stacking the court with political allies.
It doesn't take an expert to understand what appears to be going on, as Benson's PAC dropped a staggering $165,000 in an effort to get more Democrats elected to the high court's bench.
Brad Smith, law professor at Capital University Law School in Ohio explained that he believes at the very least, there are ethical concerns at play.
“I think there would be an ethical question for the judge and there’d probably be an ethical question for the secretary of state side as well," Smith said.
"Whether it’s illegal is a different question," Smith added. "But there are a lot of things that aren’t illegal or even exact violations of an ethical code that voters might want to take into account."
The outlet provided a clear example of how many voters might see a massive ethical conflict regarding the campaign donations to certain candidates.
Campaign finance records show Benson’s Michigan Legacy PAC in April gave Supreme Court Justice Kyra Bolden $82,500 for her campaign to retain her seat on the state’s highest court, which has the final word in cases involving the Secretary of State.
The move also has critical national implications regarding the presidential election, as the outlet noted:
Bolden played a key role in the high court’s Democrat majority allowing Benson to keep Robert F. Kennedy’s name on the Michigan presidential ballot despite the candidate dropping out of the race to endorse Trump. The decision is widely viewed as beneficial to Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.
Kaitlyn Buss, assistant editorial page editor for The Detroit News, pointed out how the donations from the PAC counteract Benson's insistence that she's running her office in a bipartisan fashion.
“It calls into question Benson’s claim to run her office in a bipartisan manner,” Buss wrote.
She added, “Worse, it fuels growing voter mistrust in the integrity and impartiality of the [electoral] process."
It was noted that Benson's PAC has not donated to a single Republican candidate since being formed last year. No surprise there.