A top Supreme Court judge in Brazil labeled an "evil dictator" by Elon Musk has ordered the suspension of Musk's social media website X in a battle over free speech.
The dramatic crackdown from Justice Alexandre de Moraes comes after Musk refused the judge's demands to censor Brazilian accounts spreading alleged "disinformation."
De Moraes had previously threatened to jail X's legal representative for refusing to comply with his demands.
The judge's threats escalated Wednesday when he ordered X to appoint a new legal representative within 24 hours or face nationwide suspension.
“Alexandre de Moraes is an evil dictator cosplaying as a judge,” Musk wrote in response.
De Moraes made good on his threats Friday, giving internet service providers and app stores five days to block X. Users who try to avoid the ban using virtual private networks face fines of up to $8,900 a day.
"Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country,” de Moraes wrote.
The shutdown could impact 40 million regular X users in Brazil, according to AP. The company had said it expected to be shut down "soon" for refusing to comply with de Moraes's "illegal" demands.
"We are absolutely not insisting that other countries have the same free speech laws as the United States. The fundamental issue at stake here is that Judge de Moraes demands we break Brazil’s own laws. We simply won’t do that," the company added.
Separately, de Moraes suspended bank accounts used by another one of Musk's companies, the satellite internet provider StarLink, a subsidiary of SpaceX. Musk denounced the crackdown as an illegal act of retribution.
"SpaceX and X are two completely different companies with different shareholders. I own about 40% of SpaceX, so this absolutely illegal action by the dictator [de Moraes] improperly punishes other shareholders and the people of Brazil," Musk wrote.
Many of the X accounts de Moraes wants censored are tied to Brazil's political right and its former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing prosecution by the current leftist government headed by his rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Lula - whom Musk labeled the "lapdog" of "dictator" de Moraes - defended the actions taken against Musk.
"Just because a guy has a lot of money doesn't mean he can disrespect (the law)," Lula said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides vast protections, literal immunity, for web platforms for content users post to the software programs
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides vast protections, literal immunity, for web platforms for content users post to the software programs.
But a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals now has said that when those platforms PROMOTE users' speech, it becomes their own. And their responsibility could be vast.
The decision came in the case of Tawainna Anderson, as administrator for the estate of N.A., a deceased minor, against TikTok and its parent, Bytedance.
The court explained the dispute: "TikTok, Inc., via its algorithm, recommended and promoted videos posted by third parties to ten-year-old Nylah Anderson on her uniquely curated 'For You Page.' One video depicted the 'Blackout Challenge,' which encourages viewers to record themselves engaging in acts of self-asphyxiation. After watching the video, Nylah attempted the conduct depicted in the challenge and unintentionally hanged herself."
Her mother, Tawainna Anderson, sued and the district court dismissed her based on Section 230's protections for web corporations over what their users post.
The situation would have been different had the girl searched for and found with offending video on her own. But in this case, the company's algorithms found the video, identified it, and then promoted it to her, the ruling pointed out.
That makes it the company's speech, the ruling found.
"TikTok's recommendations via its FYP algorithm – is TikTok's expressive activity," the ruling said, so the Section 230 protection "does not bar Anderon's claims."
"We reach this conclusion specifically because TikTok's promotion of a Blackout Challenge video on Nylah's FYP was not contingent upon any specific user input. Had Nylah viewed a Blackout Challenge video through TikTok's search function, rather than through her FYP, then TikTok may be viewed more like a repository of third-party content than an affirmative promoter of such content. Given the type of algorithm alleged here, we need not address whether § 230 immunizes any information that may be communicated by the results of a user's search of a platform's content," the ruling said.
The case was returned to the district court for determinations on that claim, as well as "any claims not premised upon TikTok's algorithm."
A concurrence in the majority opinion turned blunt: "TikTok reads § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, to permit casual indifference to the death of a ten-year-old girl. It is a position that has become popular among a host of purveyors of pornography, self-mutilation, and exploitation, one that smuggles constitutional conceptions of a 'free trade in ideas' into a digital 'cauldron of illicit loves' that leap and boils with no oversight, no accountability, no remedy. And a view that has found support in a surprising number of judicial opinions dating from the early days of dial-up to the modern era of algorithms, advertising, and apps. But it is not found in the words Congress wrote in § 230, in the context Congress acted, in the history of common carriage regulations, or the centuries of tradition informing the limited immunity from liability enjoyed by publishers and distributors of 'content.' As best understood, the ordinary meaning of § 230 provides TikTok immunity from suit for hosting videos created and uploaded by third parties. But it does not shield more, and Anderson's estate may seek relief for TikTok's knowing distribution and targeted recommendation of videos it knew could be harmful."
Those comments were from Circuit Judge Paul Matey.
The majority opinion said, "TikTok makes choices about the content recommended and promoted to specific users, and by doing so, is engaged in its first-party speech."
The report noted American Economic Liberties Project Research Director Matt Stoller opined that "It'll take a bit of time, but the business model of big tech is over."
President Obama nominee Judge Patty Shwartz wrote for the panel. Just the news explained she cited the Supreme Court, which ruled "algorithms that reflect 'editorial judgments' about compiling third-party content are First Amendment-protected 'expressive product[s].'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal court ruling has allowed a school to censor "Let's Go Brandon," preventing students from wearing the popular social media meme on shirts.
But a constitutional expert warns that it's a "dangerous precedent" that will move the nation established on the basis of free speech the wrong direction.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, has testified before Congress on constitutional issues, and even represented members in court.
He cited the case of "D.A." in Michigan, a student ordered to remove his sweater with the phrase on it.
That decision was from Judge Paul Maloney.
"Maloney rejects the free speech claim and rules that school officials can punish a student for wearing a 'Let's Go Brandon' T-shirt. I believe that he is wrong and that the case sets a dangerous precedent," Turley wrote.
The slogan is "a familiar political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2021 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast's questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of 'F*** Joe Biden.' Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, 'You can hear the chants from the crowd, 'Let's go, Brandon!'"
In the case at hand school officials Andrew Buikema and Wendy Bradford ordered several boys to remove the slogan.
"The school ordered the removal of the clothing as obscene and in violation of the school code. However, other students are allowed to don political apparel supporting other political causes including 'gay-pride-themed hoodies,'" he noted
While the school claims its authority to banish the message was because it was "profane," Turley explained, "The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane. To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words."
Maloney claimed, "Removing a few letters from the profane word or replacing letters with symbols would not render the message acceptable in a school setting."
Turley said the ruling is "jarring and chilling."
"The 'Let's Go Brandon' slogan is more than just a substitute for profanity directed at the president (which itself has political content). It is using satire to denounce the press that often acts like a state media. It is commentary on the alliance between the government and the media in shaping what the public sees and hears."
He warned the decision moves to far "into the regulation of political speech. Notably, politicians have used the phrase, including members of the House of Representatives despite a rule barring profanity on the floor. On October 21, 2021, Republican congressman Bill Posey concluded his remarks with 'Let's go, Brandon.' It was not declared a violation of the House rules."
The judge's "default," he said, is "to limit speech even when it is not overtly profane and concerns a major political controversy."
Attorney Steven Sadow said revelations about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' remarks are the “death knell” for the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump, Newsweek reported. In a filing Monday, Sadow asserted that Willis made statements that could prejudice jurors against Trump.
Trump has been accused of attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election. He allegedly called Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and ordered him to "find votes" that would give the state's electoral college votes to Trump.
However, the case could be in jeopardy with Willis at the helm. As Trump's attorneys have argued, there is evidence that Willis has made prejudicial remarks against Trump while pursuing legal action against him.
Sadow believes that an opinion from Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harold Nelson Hill suggests that Trump's defense has a point. Willis had made false claims of racism while speaking to a church in January that could jeopardize the jury.
Sadow believes that Hill provided the rationale for dismissing Trump's case in a 1981 opinion. "[B]efore a trial, the court should be sensitive to the potential for prejudice to the defendant," Hill said at the time.
"I believe that a trial court should disqualify the state's attorney if his continued presence in the case would cause a reasonable potential for prejudice to the defendant. A reasonable potential for prejudice standard would rigorously protect defendants," Hill added.
"It would not require a showing of actual, or likely, harm. Rather, the trial court would focus on the possibility of an unfair trial. Yet, this rule would place the burden on defendants of demonstrating some real, not imagined, chance of prejudice,'" Hill said.
Sadow thinks this is easily proven in Trump's case, though the judge in Trump's case incorrectly relied on a later decision in Williams v. State in 1988 to overlook Wills' conduct. "Here, even Hill's 'reasonable potential for prejudice' pretrial standard is easily met," Sadow wrote in the filing.
"With nationwide slanderous media coverage on every available network, appellants have shown that there is not only a 'real chance,' but a substantial probability, for unfair treatment during the trial process," he added. Willis has denied any prejudice, though she hasn't responded to the latest iteration of the charge from Sadow.
The speech Trump's defense referenced happened on Jan. 14 at the historically black Big Bethel AME Church in Atlanta, the New York Post reported. Willis addressed the congregation and attempted to explain away allegations about an improper relationship.
The co-defendants in Trump's case outed Willis' affair with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she hired for the case. In the course of that explanation, Willis implied that her critics were motivated by racism though she didn't mention Trump or his case by name.
"They only attacked one. First thing they say, ‘Oh, she’s gonna play the race card now,'" Willis told the congregation. "But no, God, isn’t it them that’s playing the race card when they only question one?"
Willis was already compromised because of her improper relationship with Wade. However, Trump's defense is correct that the case should be dismissed because she poisoned the well of potential jurors by making such remarks about racism.
Kamala Harris pledged to keep "fighting" for student loan forgiveness after the Supreme Court shut down a second attempt by the Biden-Harris administration to erase billions in debt.
The ruling is a blow to Harris' presidential campaign, which has a support base of young liberal voters who are more likely to have college debt.
President Biden pledged to wipe student debt in 2020, but his efforts to do so have stretched his legal authority, leading to a series of court defeats.
The Supreme Court shut down Biden's first, sweeping attempt to wipe $400 billion in loans last summer.
That led Biden to announce a new program, SAVE, that either lowers or eliminates monthly payments entirely based on income level.
Republican states challenged SAVE and won injunctions from federal courts in Kansas and Missouri. Then, two different appeals courts ruled differently: the 10th Circuit Appeals Court allowed a portion of SAVE to continue, while the 8th Circuit blocked SAVE in its entirety.
In the latest twist in the legal saga, the Supreme Court shot down a request from Biden's Justice Department to lift the 8th Circuit's injunction.
“The [Supreme] Court expects that the Court of Appeals will render its decision with appropriate dispatch,” the court wrote in a brief order.
The SAVE Plan lowers monthly payments from 10% of discretionary income to 5%. Borrowers with $12,000 or less in debt could have their loans forgiven after 10 years of payments. Those making less than 225% of the federal poverty line, or $32,800 a year for a single person, also don't have to pay.
Republicans have blasted the Biden-Harris student loan efforts as a wealth transfer from working-class and non-college voters to college graduates who lean left.
In a post on X, Harris bragged about the administration's progress in wiping roughly $170 billion in debt.
"@POTUS and I have canceled nearly $170 billion in student debt for almost 5 million Americans," Harris wrote on X. "We are also fighting to defend our SAVE Plan, which has lowered payments for millions of Americans. We won't stop fighting to build an economy that works for every American."
The Harris campaign is on defense over the economy and cost of living, with voters continuing to struggle with the inflation of the Biden era. This student loan ruling won't make the Harris campaign's job any easier.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A defamation lawsuit by one-time GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who sued the New York Times after it published an editorial suggesting she inspired or incited Jared Loughner's 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, is alive again.
The latest iteration comes out of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals where a three-judge panel threw out a 2022 jury verdict in favor of the publication due to the errors of Jed Rakoff, the district judge in the case.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a popular commentator on legal issues who has testified multiple times before Congress, said the fight could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court where it could make changes to the New York Times v. Sullivan precedent that gives special protection to those who say bad things about "public figures."
That standard, he said, "is an obvious benefit to the media. However, without a compelling argument for a constitutional standard for public figures, it seems more like a judicially maintained subsidy or shield. The purpose of Times v. Sullivan was not to simply prop up the press. The Palin case and other cases could present a new opportunity for the court to review the doctrine."
The appeals panel said that Rakoff had dismissed the case earlier, using an improper process, and then when reversed held a trial and gave the case to the jury. But he again dismissed the case while the jury was deliberating.
"We conclude that the district court's Rule 50 ruling improperly intruded on the province of the jury by making credibility determinations, weighing evidence, and ignoring facts or inferences that a reasonable juror could plausibly have found to support Palin's case," the court said.
The decision noted that despite the dismissal, the jury was allowed to reach a decision, which was in favor of the Times.
"Unfortunately, several major issues at trial – specifically, the erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction, a legally erroneous response to a mid-deliberation jury question, and jurors learning during deliberations of the district court's Rule 50 dismissal ruling – impugn the reliability of that verdict," the court said, listing multiple errors by Rakoff.
It sent the case back for another trial.
Turley explained the foundation of the case: "The case involves an editorial that suggested Palin inspired or incited Jared Loughner's 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). It was outrageously and demonstrably untrue. The editorial was published in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and other GOP members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, of Illinois, 66, a liberal activist and campaign supporter of Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). It appears The Times wanted to shift the narrative back to right-wing violence; it stated that SarahPAC, Palin's political action committee, had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot, described it as direct incitement of violence and opined that while not as guilty as Palin, 'liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.'"
But, he said, the reality is that the map SarahPAC distributed put targets on various districts that were viewed as possible flip districts by Republicans, and the map was published long before the shooting.
Turley said the big concern now is that it appears Rakoff again will be allowed to make decisions in the new trial, even after he'd been publicly humiliated by being reversed twice for errors that harmed the plaintiff.
He said the "hit piece" on Palin was "all-too-familiar for conservatives and Republicans routinely targeted by the newspaper. In that sense, the Times has become the very thing that the original decision sought to combat: a threat to free speech. The Times, they argue, often uses this protection to shield false attacks on political opponents."
The standard calls for a knowledge that a damaging statement is false, or a "reckless disregard" regarding comments about public figures.
The Times was integral to that standard. "Decades ago, The Times was being targeted by segregationists who wanted to deter media from publishing accounts of segregationists opposing the civil rights movement. This effort was creating such a threat that media had to choose between a type of self-censorship or insolvency. In his concurrence in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice Hugo Black said that 'state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials,'" Turley documented.
He opined that Palin offered "sufficient evidence to allow a jury to render a verdict," but Rakoff claimed she had failed to offer evidence meeting the actual malice standard.
He noted Rakoff even insisted on ordering the jury not to speak to the media after the case, "an abusive demand that worked to protect his own errors," Turley noted.
And he revealed two current Supreme Court justices already have indicated "they might be open to the idea of revisiting" the standard.
Special counsel Jack Smith's superseding indictment revised the charges against former President Donald Trump, CNN reported. Smith was forced to do so following the Supreme Court's decision granting presidential immunity.
Trump's attorneys argued that his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, fell under the protection of his presidential duties. The Supreme Court agreed with Trump in a 6-3 ruling.
This meant that some charges Smith pursued would likely be negated upon appeal. To complicate matters, Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion did not provide a roadmap for how Smith could successfully proceed, which meant he had to go back to the drawing board.
A new grand jury returned the new indictment Wednesday, which contains key revisions and additions to the charges. Smith has attempted to turn the focus to Trump's status as a political candidate during the unrest to skirt the immunity issue.
As Georgia State University constitutional lawyer Anthony Michael Kreis pointed out, Smith has pivoted to "trying to make a clean case for why this is indictable and why these indictable offenses all stem from conduct that Donald Trump did as a candidate and not as president in any formal or official capacity." This means that certain presidential briefings have been removed from Smith's case.
Also gone are references to Trump's conduct while the unrest occurred which would confirm his role as an official. During the breach of the U.S. Capitol by his supporters, Trump took meetings with presidential advisers who implored him to intervene.
Based on their recommendations, Trump posted a message to protesters on X, then Twitter, to "remain peaceful." Later that day, he posted a video message from the Rose Garden asking rioters to leave the building.
The new indictment no longer references those actions or a call Trump engaged in with then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy during the unrest. Notably, prosecutors removed Trump's alleged comment from the outer Oval Office that "this is what happens when they try to steal an election." The comment fits neatly with their narrative, but the venue does not.
One portion that remains despite its ties to official proceedings is Trump's conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence about holding off on certifying the votes. Smith has recast the conversations as those between Trump, the candidate, and Pence, his running mate, while downplaying their respective roles as president and vice president.
While Smith has reworked some of the previous charges, he has also added new information to find something that sticks. His revised indictment adds more background about the electoral vote certification process that he believes will help.
This is because the obstruction charge requires a threshold imposed by another Supreme Court ruling from a Jan. 6 defendant. As Reuters reported, obstruction of an official proceeding happens only if the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity" of records or documents in the proceedings.
It may be a stretch, but Smith is attempting to link Trump's conduct that day to an effort to hinder the use of certifying documents by Congress. Because staffers were forced off the Senate floor during the certification, they took documents with them.
Smith's theory dictates that if Trump was the impetus for them to move those documents, the obstruction charge could remain. It seems like a stretch, but Smith is desperate to salvage his case against Trump as the election draws nearer.
Smith is intent on prosecuting Trump no matter the obstacles. This case and the charges appear highly politicized, given the hoops Smith is willing to jump through to ensure there is something he can pin on the former president.
Republican states have asked the Supreme Court to block sweeping federal regulations limiting methane emissions.
It's the latest legal challenge to Biden's Environmental Protection Agency, which has pursued an aggressive regulatory agenda targeting oil and gas producers. The EPA claims the plan would reduce methane emissions by up to 80% within a decade.
Biden's climate agenda has faced pushback from the Supreme Court before, most notably in the 2022 case West Virginia v. EPA, in which the court ruled that the EPA cannot force power plants nationwide to shift away from using coal.
In their emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, 24 Republican states blasted the methane rule as a repeat of the EPA's past efforts to "revolutionize" the Clean Air Act.
“Given its effort to revolutionize that unassuming provision to shut down power plants in favor of other sources of generation, and then to impose an impossible-to-meet standard to achieve that same result, EPA’s use of this provision to attack unlawfully the oil and gas industry comes as no surprise,” the states wrote.
The EPA's methane reduction plan gives states an "unrealistic" two-year window to regulate hundreds of thousands of existing facilities, the states said.
"The Rule’s imposition of detailed 'presumptive standards' for hundreds of thousands of facilities, coupled with an unrealistic two-year deadline, forces State-Applicants into an untenable position."
"For example, in Oklahoma, the Rule requires the State to regulate over 200,000 existing oil and gas facilities, although Oklahoma had previously only regulated about 10,000 such facilities," the petition reads.
States that attempt the "monumental task" of developing their own EPA-compliant plans risk massive, non-recoverable economic costs if the rule is ultimately struck down.
The alternative is for the states to give up their lawful control over emissions standards and adopt the EPA's "presumptive standards" in their entirety.
"For example, Kentucky expects it will need to hire at least 100 new employees 'immediately,' while Oklahoma projects it will need to increase its existing permitting and compliance staff by 50%. Meanwhile, Ohio’s EPA projects it may need up to $16,375,000 per year to comply with the Rule."
“The rule effectively forces the states to accept EPA’s ‘presumptive standards,’ thereby limiting the states’ authority to adopt their own standards of performance for regulating methane and VOC emissions from existing facilities,” the states wrote.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit rejected the Republican states' request in July.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The company run by the daughter of a New York judge who has faced "conflict of interest" and bias charges for his handling of one of the Democrats' lawfare campaigns against President Donald Trump has been subpoenaed by Congress.
Congress, in fact, was forced into the subpoena because the company refused to voluntarily provide any information.
The issue that's under investigation is Loren Merchan's company, called Authentic Campaigns, has worked directly with and for a multitude of Democrat interests in the 2024 election season. Including the opponents of Trump.
Merchan's father, Juan Merchan, was the judge for the New York claims about business recording violations within Trump's companies.
The charges would have been misdemeanors except the statute of limitations already had expired. So District Attorney Alvin Bragg claimed those actions were in pursuit of another unspecified crime so that made them felonies.
Merchan, the judge, disallowed much of the defense evidence and the result was the jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts, a decision that now is on appeal.
But U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is demanding information about "the political work" done by Loren Merchan, and in a letter to Authentic Campaigns chief Micheal Nellis said it could have been done the easy way had the company cooperated.
"The committee is left with no choice but to resort to compulsory process," Jordan wrote. "Popularly elected prosecutors, such as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, have engaged in an unprecedented abuse of authority by prosecuting a former President of the United States and current nominee for that office. Of relevance to the committee's oversight is the impartiality of Judge Juan Merchan, the presiding trial judge, due to his refusal to recuse himself from the case in light of his apparent conflicts of interest and biases."
In fact, reports reveal that Loren Merchan was making money from Democrats off the decisions her father was making in the courtroom against Trump.
Jordan identified one of the problems that Congress may want to address with legislation: "One such conflict is Ms. Merchan's—daughter of Judge Merchan and President of Authentic Campaigns—work on behalf of President Trump's political adversaries and the possible financial benefit that Ms. Merchan and Authentic Campaigns received from the prosecution and conviction of President Trump."
According to a previous report from WND, Merchan the judge was obvious in provoking questions about his behavior.
His behavior was cited by legal expert and longtime commentator Alan Dershowitz after Merchan openly feuded with a witness, ordered the courtroom cleared, and essentially blew his stack during the proceedings.
A report at Fox News said Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor emeritus, "called out" Merchan for "outrageous" rulings against Trump.
He told "The Brian Kilmeade Show" host Brian Kilmeade that Merchan is a "tyrant" for threatening to strike the testimony of defense witness Bob Costello, who expressed disbelief at some of Merchan's anti-Trump rulings.
Dershowitz charged, "I've been in courthouses in every part of the world and in China, in Russia, in Ukraine, in Israel. I've been all over. I've never seen a spectacle like this. And that's why it should have been on television, so the American public could see how outrageous this judge is. And CNN just does his bidding. CNN lies, lies through their teeth about what happened in court yesterday between Judge Merchan and Bob Costello. Bob Costello testifies, Merchan rules against him at every point, keeps out his testimony, makes outrageous rulings that any first-year student taking evidence would know was wrong."
Dershowitz added, "And Bob Costello does what I did: He rolled his eyes. And I rolled my eyes, I said, I couldn't believe the judge was making these rulings. And the judge, thinking he's a tyrant, clears the courtroom, throws out everybody from the media. For some reason, they allowed me to stay, and I watched as the judge berated him. And the judge said something I have never seen in a courtroom in my history, 60 years. He threatened to strike the testimony of the main witness for the defendant because of punishment of the witness for staring at the judge. Can you imagine the violation of the Sixth Amendment? The Sixth Amendment allows any defendant to confront witnesses and to present evidence in his defense. Can you imagine if this judge had actually struck the testimony of Bob Costello? It would result in an automatic mistrial, new trial, and a verdict against the prosecution. The judge was bluffing. He ought to be disciplined for making that threat because the threat was an idle threat. He obviously didn't act on it. …":
Dershowitz pointed out that American law doesn't allow a judge to just throw out a witness's testimony to punish a defendant.
"And we didn't see it because television is not allowed in the courtroom. … They just won't allow the American public to watch this trial, and I don't blame them. If I were the judge, I would never want this trial to be on television because he's behaved so outrageously," he said.
A report at the Daily Mail described Merchan's outburst as "unhinged."
In a column there, Dershowitz described, "The stench of deceit hung in the air as I sat in the front row of a Manhattan courtroom. Seated on the witness stand, no more than a few feet from me, I watched in disbelief as Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen told the jury one seeming lie after another."
"When asked by prosecutors on Monday whether he would financially benefit if Trump were convicted of falsifying business records to hide an alleged hush money payment to protect his 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen denied it. That is demonstrably false," he said.
"Cohen is shopping around a reality TV show to capitalize on his newfound fame. He has admitted to making more than $3 million on anti-Trump books and podcasts and sells merchandise portraying the former president behind bars. All of these enterprises would be undermined by a Trump acquittal."
Then, he added, "There is Cohen's confession that he stole tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organizations by deceitfully overcharging for his services."
He said during the trial, he has not seen "any evidence" that Trump committed a crime.
Fox revealed that Jordan cited public reports to suggest Loren Merchan was involved in the campaigns belonging to Biden and Harris.
"During Ms. Merchan's employment with the Harris campaign, Authentic Campaigns received over $7 million in compensation for its services. You also worked for then-presidential candidate Harris and it appears you continue to do so. Authentic Campaigns conducted work for the 2020 Biden-Harris campaign and, according to public records, was paid just over $2 million in a one-month period for its work," he wrote to the company.
Trump's lawyers asked Merchan, the judge, to send the case to another judge because of the evidence of his bias, and he refused.
Nellis subsequently claimed to be reviewing thoroughly the legal demand.
He said his company would refuse to be "bullied."
But Jordan charged, "Judge Merchan's conflicts of interest and biases in the case against President Trump, the Republican nominee in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, implicate serious federal interests. Congress has a specific and manifestly important interest in preventing politically motivated prosecutions of current and former presidents, especially in venues in which real or perceived biases exist. Among other things, if state or local prosecutors are able to engage in politically motivated prosecutions of Presidents of the United States (current or former) for personal acts, this could have a profound effect on how presidents choose to exercise their powers while in office."
Jordan wrote, "The records requested from Authentic Campaigns are relevant to the committee's oversight work. These documents will allow the committee to better understand and assess the apparent conflicts of interest and bias in the prosecution of a former president by a local elected prosecutor in a local tribunal before a clearly conflicted judge.
The Justice Department will abandon obstruction charges against former police officer Joseph Fischer for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, Reuters reported. The decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the definition for the charge, which may impact another 250 such cases.
The Jan. 6 defendants await their fate after allegedly participating in a riot to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election. These supporters of former President Donald Trump believed he was robbed of the election and sought justice by demonstrating at the Capitol.
Fischer was charged with obstruction but prevailed at the Supreme Court. The court found that Fischer did not cross the legal threshold that he "impaired the availability or integrity" of records and documents.
The government will still try Fischer on six other charges against him, including assaulting an officer. The trial has a tentative start date of February 2025 for Fischer, who has pleaded not guilty.
Fischer was a North Cornwall, Pennsylvania, police officer when he was arrested for his role in the riot. The state charged him with obstruction based on a statute federal prosecutors believed broadly applied to those who breached the Capitol.
However, after hearing arguments from his attorney, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols dismissed the obstruction charge. This sent the matter up to the Supreme Court for an appeal, which found in favor of Fischer in a 6-3 decision.
Prosecutors have since dropped the charge for more than 60 defendants. Trump has similarly been pinned with two charges related to obstruction for his alleged role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, but will likely use Fischer's case as a defense.
Following the court's decision to drop the charge, Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was "disappointed" but would prosecute the "vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants" facing other charges. "There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer," Garland said.
"For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling. We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy," he added.
Three other cases will proceed even after the Fischer decision. Prosecutors believe that some of the defendants pierced the new threshold applied by the Supreme Court.
The charge remains for defendants Donald and Shawndale Chilcoat, who are husband and wife, after prosecutors argued that they knew they were tampering with records required for the proceedings, "specifically, the electoral votes that Congress was to consider." Others like Christopher Carnell and David Bowman were already found guilty of obstruction and may face more litigation.
Prosecutors another trial to make the charges stick, noting that the defendants tampered with documents on the Senate floor, including photographing a letter signed by Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah. Defense attorney Nick Smith, who has battled over obstruction charges, is puzzled at why prosecutors are so intent on proceeding.
“It’s remarkable for the government to be going at this specific charge so persistently when the Supreme Court has told them 'no,'" Smith noted. This decision to pursue charges already at odds with the Supreme Court mirrors special counsel Jack Smith's decision to go after Trump with a retooled indictment after the high court decided in favor of presidential immunity, CNN reported.
It's amazing that prosecutors are so doggedly pursuing the Jan. 6 defendants and Trump despite legal obstacles. While there is surely a case to be made about the crimes of Jan. 6, the outsized reaction and determination from prosecutors perhaps point to political motives.