Special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment Tuesday to retool charges against former President Donald Trump, Breitbart reported. Trump slammed this move as "an effort to resurrect a 'dead' Witch Hunt" and called for the charges to "be dismissed immediately."
Smith originally charged Trump with four crimes in connection with an alleged effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. The case hit a roadblock as the president's legal team asserted that his conduct fell under presidential immunity.
The question of whether the privilege applied reached the Supreme Court, which sided with Trump in July. This forced Smith back to the drawing board to work around the issue.
What the new grand jury came up with this week was a revision to the same charges with language that skirts immunity. "The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States," Smith said.
Trump called Smith's decision to pursue "a 'dead' Witch Hunt in Washington, D.C." was "an act of desperation." He charged that Smith was trying to "save face" and called Tuesday's move "a ridiculous new Indictment against me, which has all the problems of the old Indictment, and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY," Trump wrote on Turth Social.
"His Florida Document Hoax Case has been completely dismissed," Trump noted. Earlier this year, a Florida judge threw out Trump's classified documents case in the Sunshine State on the grounds that Smith was unlawfully appointed.
Trump said Smith's indictment was "merely an attempt to INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION, and distract the American People from the catastrophes Kamala Harris has inflicted on our Nation, like the Border Invasion, Migrant Crime, Rampant Inflation, the threat of World War III, and more..." Smith's effort will now continue with just two months left before Election Day.
Trump makes it clear that he believes the continued legal attacks are political. Smith is pursuing charges even after the Supreme Court defanged most of them, which defies reason except if the aim is something other than justice.
According to Fox News, Trump is still being charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of and an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. Trump has pleaded not guilty to them all.
However, Trump is no longer being accused of using the Justice Department in his efforts to overturn the election results. That charge initially came through Jeffrey Clark, who was a senior official in Trump's Justice Department.
Clark allegedly wanted to send letters to state officials claiming that his office "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election" to stop the certification. Trump did not participate but rewarded Clark by keeping on as acting attorney general.
Clark and Trump were dropped as co-conspirators. These changes came just three days before the court's deadline for Smith to make his decision on what to do with the case in light of the immunity decision. It's unlikely that the trial will proceed before the November election.
Trump has faced several legal challenges while trying to conduct a presidential campaign, and now he must continue to defend himself despite the case being on shaky ground. Smith's decision to file a new indictment suggests this is no coincidence.
Donald Trump's New York conviction is in jeopardy after the Supreme Court's bombshell immunity ruling, according to a legal expert.
Alvin Bragg's case against Trump relied on evidence that should never have been allowed under the court's immunity precedent, defense lawyer David W. Fischer explained in a column on Julie Kelly's Substack.
The judge, Juan Merchan, will rule on Trump's motion to dismiss the conviction in September, two days before Trump's sentencing. Trump's request is based on the Supreme Court's immunity decision, which held that a president's "official acts" cannot be prosecuted or used as evidence.
Merchan has consistently ruled against Trump, and many expect that pattern to continue when the judge decides on Trump's motion in September.
Even if Merchan shuts Trump down on immunity, it is likely that Trump's sentencing will be postponed so he can appeal, Fischer argued. Bragg can see the writing on the wall, too.
"That’s the reason why Bragg did not oppose Trump’s request to delay his September sentencing date until after the November election," Fischer wrote.
"Assuming Trump is re-elected, the New York case will evaporate, either through the appellate or political process," he added.
The Supreme Court explained in its immunity ruling that presidents cannot be probed over their official acts, as it would expose their authority to dangerous "intrusion." But Bragg's prosecution of Trump relied heavily on testimony from former Trump staffer Hope Hicks and other evidence that fell within the "outer perimeter" of Trump's presidential duties, Fischer said.
Bragg has dismissed the inclusion of his evidence as "harmless error," but Trump's lawyers argue the error was a much more significant one that corrupted the trial.
"Because of the implications for the institution of the Presidency, the use of official-acts evidence was a structural error under the federal Constitution that tainted [the District Attorney's] grand jury proceedings as well as the trial," Trump's lawyers wrote last month.
The Supreme Court's immunity ruling has already placed Trump's January 6th case in limbo, and a separate classified documents case was tossed by the judge. Another criminal case in Georgia has been delayed indefinitely by the prosecutor's own misconduct.
Democrats, and Kamala Harris in particular, have been left clinging to the flimsy New York conviction to label Trump a "convicted felon."
Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg believes special counsel Jack Smith's delay in prosecuting former President Donald Trump is strategic, the Daily Caller reported. Smith requested the court push back a hearing by several weeks to reevaluate the case in light of a Supreme Court decision in favor of Trump's presidential immunity.
Aronberg made his remarks on MSNC's Morning Joe on Monday. He believes Smith may be delaying the trial and keeping his next moves under wraps to keep Trump's legal team off kilter.
"Jack Smith may not want the defense to see his cards. He may not want the defense to see the witnesses, be better prepared for the ultimate trial that’ll happen if Trump is not elected. And so that may be part of it," Aronberg said.
Florida State Attorney Tells MSNBC Jack Smith May Be Delaying Case To Hide 'His Cards' From Trump pic.twitter.com/kFk3UQC7s3
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 26, 2024
Smith and other Trump enemies hoped to disrupt Trump's 2024 reelection bid with charges and trials. The former president was accused of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, among other criminal charges.
However, Trump's legal team argued for presidential immunity in the case, which the lower court rejected on Dec. 1. The Supreme Court then took up the issue and ruled that Trump was indeed covered by the privilege of the presidential office, which was a game-changer.
This has ostensibly set Smith's prosecution strategy back, but he may be gearing up to go after Trump after November's election. "He also may want to protect his witnesses, like Mike Pence, from being harassed, from being threatened by the MAGA world," Aronberg said of the former vice president.
"Mike Pence would have to take the stand in this mini-trial. He also may want to protect Donald Trump from having a Sixth Amendment violation, where he loses the right to a fair trial because Jack Smith has tainted the jury pool," Aronberg added.
"And if that happens, then an appellate court could throw the whole thing out," Aronberg said. Nothing would be worse for Trump's enemies than for their efforts to prosecute him and stop him from getting elected to fail miserably.
Many rightly suspect this prosecution was a political ploy. Yet Aronberg believes that part of the delay may be so Smith and Attorney General Merrick Garland can salvage what's left of their credibility.
"There are some people saying that Jack Smith and Merrick Garland don’t want to look political. That’s why they’re not doing this because it’s so close to the election," Aronberg claimed.
"That’s not a good reason to avoid doing this. Because whether you do it or don’t, you’re going to be called political. The MAGA world’s going to say you’re weaponizing the Department of Justice," Aronberg continued.
"So go ahead and follow the evidence and the law and do it. Whether you decide to do it or not should not be based on politics. If you choose not to decide, you’ll still have made a choice," he added.
The original plan was to get Trump bogged down with these charges and trials during the campaign. Instead, Trump has notched legal victories that have delayed proceedings until after the election as he continues his campaign.
An Arizona judge set a 2026 trial date for Rudy Guiliani, Mark Meadows, and 16 others connected to former President Donald Trump, CNN reported. These defendants are accused of conspiring to subvert the 2020 presidential election results on behalf of the former president.
Arizona Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen, who is a Democrat, ordered the trial to begin on January 5, 2026, to prosecute a case that will be six years old by then. He clarified that the start date is still a "moving target" despite the decision on Monday.
The date is six months later than originally requested. However, the judge explained that it would allow defense attorneys time for the discovery process and interviews for some 80 witnesses the prosecutors have listed for the trial.
Notably, Trump is not one of those indicted but is referred to as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in legal filings about the alleged attempt to overturn the election results. Prosecutors have claimed to this fact proves that the indictment is not politically motivated.
Prosecutors claim that several Republicans planned to unlawfully cast electoral votes in a scheme allegedly cooked up by conservative attorney John Eastman. Arizona has dubbed them fake electors as they planned to cast electoral votes for Trump on the notion that he had won the state.
Earlier this month, prosecutors successfully flipped their first defendant when Jenna Ellis, Trump's 2020 campaign attorney, turned state's witness to avoid charges for herself. She will now testify against others in Trump's circle.
Initially, prosecutors pinned her with several felony counts which later proved useful for turning her. They struck a similar plea deal with Loraine Pellegrino, who was nabbed for allegedly signing a false electoral document, that has also turned her into a witness.
Pellegrino will plead guilty to a false document charge, but the other criminal charges concerning the conspiracy will be dismissed. Others of the so-called fake electors will have to wait until 2026 for their cases to be adjudicated as they face criminal charges.
Still, White House aide and Trump confidant Boris Epshteyn, who was also named in the indictment, is sticking to a plea of not guilty. Meanwhile, other big fish like Guiliani, Trump's personal attorney at the time, and then-chief of staff Mark Meadows, are not going down without a fight.
Meadows objected to the indictment claiming he was involved in advocating for Trump but didn't participate in the elector effort. His attorneys requested moving his trial to federal court because his conduct fell under official duties at the time.
"Nothing Mr. Meadows is alleged in the indictment to have done is criminal per se. Rather, it consists of allegations that he received (and occasionally responded to) messages from people who were trying to get ideas in front of President Trump or seeking to inform Mr. Meadows about the strategy and status of various legal efforts by the President’s campaign," the filing said.
"This is precisely the kind of state interference in a federal official’s duties that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits and that the removal statute shields from adjudication in a state court," Meadows' attorneys argued. Guiliani's attorneys also cited the Constitution but took a First Amendment approach.
"How is Mr. Giuliani to know that, oh my gosh, he presided over a meeting in downtown Phoenix. How is he to know that that's a crime?" Guiliani's attorney, Mark Williams, said about Guiliani's claims about a stolen election, according to CBS News.
Although Trump wasn't indicted, this case is being used to pressure Trump's associates to turn against him because they repeated claims that many people felt were worth exploring about the 2020 election. The left will stop at nothing to get Trump, whether directly or through his associates and supporters.
The Supreme Court has struck down large portions of the Biden agenda this summer, making it more difficult for Vice President Kamala Harris to make claims about what she helped accomplish as his second-in-command.
Biden and his administration's habit of using executive orders to get around a divided Congress is coming back to bite him now, when Harris needs to rest on those laurels if she has any hope of rallying the Democrat base to her side.
Here are some of the rulings and their implications.
The Chevron doctrine allowing non-elected officials from government agencies to make laws and rules was struck down after 40 years, and could bring an end to what conservatives call the deep state without having to fire anyone.
The statute of limitations for challenging federal regulations was removed, allowing more of those challenges to go forward.
The ability of agencies to use internal judges to settle disputes was stripped away.
Whether Harris gets elected or not, the Democrat power base will be greatly curtailed by these three rulings.
The rulings could further decimate Biden's efforts to shift student loan burdens to taxpayers and
In addition, lower courts are busy starting the process of striking down even more of Biden's executive overreach.
A Texas judge blocked Biden's ban on noncompete clauses, and a Mississippi judge refused to go along with enshrining special treatment for transgender Americans in health care.
Leftist officials are up in arms over the changes.
“We have an extremist Supreme Court with a very political agenda that is willing to overturn decades of precedent,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), the House Progressive Caucus chair, said during one interview. “It has changed the legal strategy.”
Biden has trampled on the Constitution with impunity and bragged about it for the last three-and-a-half years, but it's all beginning to catch up to him now.
No doubt they'll continue to lie about what they've done and how, but those paying attention will know the truth.
According to The Express Tribune, in a striking legal move, Isaac Hayes' family has initiated a lawsuit against Donald Trump for unauthorized music usage at his political rallies.
The family seeks an injunction and $3 million in licensing fees for the use of the song "Hold On, I'm Coming" from 2022 to 2024.
Isaac Hayes III, representing his late father's estate, took to Twitter to announce the lawsuit directed at former President Trump, stirring significant attention online.
Isaac Hayes, a legendary soul musician, wrote "Hold On, I'm Coming" which has been used without the family's permission at various political events featuring Trump.
This legal action pinpoints a continuing issue of artists' rights versus political campaign practices in music usage.
The Federal Court reacted swiftly, scheduling an emergency hearing for September 3, 2024, to address this pressing copyright infringement claim.
With the hearing date set, the legal teams prepare for a confrontation that could set precedents for copyright law in the political arena.
This court date aims to resolve the dispute over whether Trump's campaign and associated organizations had the right to use the iconic track without consent.
Beyond Donald Trump himself, the lawsuit names several major conservative organizations as defendants.
The Republican National Committee (RNC), Trump for President Inc. 2024, Turning Point, and The National Rifle Association (NRA) are all implicated in the unauthorized use of the song.
This broad targeting hints at a widespread practice of using popular music without securing proper rights, a common issue in recent political campaigns.
The issue is not isolated to Isaac Hayes' music. Other renowned artists have voiced similar complaints regarding Trump rallies.
Celine Dion, Johnny Marr of The Smiths, and the Foo Fighters have all reported unauthorized uses of their music in political settings, echoing Hayes' grievances.
This collective frustration among artists points to a larger systemic issue that transcends individual incidents.
Donald Trump's sentencing might get pushed beyond the 2024 election, according to a legal analyst, an outcome that would be a devastating loss for Democrat prosecutor Alvin Bragg.
The sentencing in Trump's "hush money" case is set for September 18, but the judge may decide to let Trump's immunity appeal play out first, former prosecutor Elie Honig wrote in The Intelligencer.
"If Judge Merchan chooses to let Trump appeal the immunity issue first, then we’re looking at months, and maybe more than a year, of delay before sentencing," Honig wrote.
The sentencing was initially set for July but was derailed by the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, which held that presidents are immune to prosecution for their "official acts." The court also barred prosecutors from using "official acts" as evidence.
Trump has used the Supreme Court's ruling to challenge his conviction. Some of the evidence that Bragg used against Trump came from his time in office, including testimony that Bragg called "devastating" and "critical" to the case, Honig noted.
Judge Juan Merchan will rule on Trump's motion to dismiss the verdict just two days before sentencing. Bragg signaled last week that he is not opposed to Trump's request to delay the sentence pending his appeal of the immunity issue, which could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
A delayed sentencing could give Merchan an "off-ramp" to avoid confronting a politically explosive situation, Honig noted.
"He can rule in Trump’s favor, without opposition from the DA, and put off the whole hot mess until after the appeal and, in effect, until way after the election," Honig wrote.
If Trump's sentencing is delayed and he wins the presidency or eventually, his appeal, he may never face sentencing at all, Honig observed.
"If Judge Merchan does grant a postponement pending appeal, then Trump won’t face sentencing until (far) after the election — and, if he wins either that election or his appeal, perhaps ever," he wrote.
Honig was a skeptic of Bragg's prosecution, publishing a widely shared, devastating piece about how Bragg "contorted the law" to get the result he wanted.
Merchan has declined to recuse himself from the case, despite his daughter's past work for Kamala Harris, Trump's opponent in the election. Harris has cited Trump's conviction to attack him on the campaign trail.
Trump's lawyers have told Merchan a delayed sentence "would reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings."
For the better part of the last year or so, former President Donald Trump's legal issues seemed, to many, insurmountable.
However, over the past several months, that situation has drastically changed, and Trump and his lawyers keep scoring massive, profound legal wins.
According to Newsweek, the latest boon for the Trump legal defense was news that Special Counsel Jack Smith decided not to pursue a "mini-trial" against Trump to present evidence in the federal election interference case ahead of the November election.
Trump and his legal team's primary goal, according to many legal experts, was to stall and delay as many cases/trials as possible before the election.
The news was huge for Trump and his lawyers, as it means the public will not hear evidence and testimony related to the election interference case before the November election.
News of Smith's refusal to move forward with the mini-trial was reportedly leaked to Bloomberg, according Newsweek.
Newsweek noted:
People familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told Bloomberg that Smith's office is instead "carefully revising the case" against the former president. The case was held up for months pending the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's arguments that he is protected from facing criminal charges under presidential immunity.
The U.S. Supreme Court's immunity ruling was also a smashing win for Trump's legal defense, as it completely rocked the cases against him, particularly those pursued by Smith.
Smith also took a critical hit earlier this year after the judge in the Mar-a-Lago documents case ruled that he was appointed unconstitutionally, which all but killed that case against the former president.
The news is especially great for Trump because if he wins the White House in November, the cases against him will ultimately likely go away.
Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, explained to Newsweek why the latest news bodes well for the former and potentially future president.
"If he is reelected, the cases have to be dismissed because a sitting president can't be prosecuted," Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, told Newsweek via email.
She added, "And even if he loses the election, Trump will continue to try to delay and litigate issues like presidential immunity and Smith's appointment in both the trial and appellate courts because he's had success doing so."
For now, Trump seems to be in the clear as far as trials ahead of the election. Let's hope it stays that way.
In a battleground state that was the scene of contentious disputes following the 2020 presidential election, a candidate for a top judicial post has withdrawn his election bid to instead work on behalf of the GOP ticket more broadly.
As the Detroit Free Press reports, Matthew DePerno, a lawyer who was seeking a spot on the Michigan Supreme Court, pulled his name from consideration just before the state's Republican Party convention was set to commence.
DePerno's name gained notoriety in recent years, largely due to a lawsuit he filed that included claims of manipulated vote tabulation machinery during the last presidential election.
It was, he argued, in Antrim County that equipment was adjusted in a manner designed to harm Trump's candidacy and benefit that of Joe Biden.
In the wake of that controversy, DePerno challenged Democrat Attorney General Dana Nessel in 2022, but lost his bid to unseat the well-known liberal.
As NPR noted at the time, it was in 2023 that DePerno was charged with allegedly attempting to unlawfully gain access to voting machines in 2020 as part of the battle over tabulation equipment.
DePerno faces counts of undue possession of a voting machine, willfully damaging a voting machine, and conspiracy, felonies for which he is currently awaiting trial.
Just before the GOP convention began in Flint over the weekend, DePerno informed the party of his withdrawal decision via email, saying, “I've come to the conclusion that I can best help President Trump win Michigan by making sure that we have the strongest absentee and early vote program anywhere in the country – stronger than the Democrats.”
He continued, “Therefore, I am withdrawing my nomination for Supreme Court and asking fellow delegates to dig deep and think hard about which of the candidates for each of these positions would make the strongest ticket in November.”
DePerno, who, according to campaign finance records, had only raised $100 for his Supreme Court bid, went on to declare his endorsement of Branch County Circuit Judge Patrick O' Grady for a partial, four-year term on the panel, for which he was indeed selected to run.
State Rep. Andrew Fink was also chosen by the delegates to seek an eight-year term on the state's highest court.
Adding a touch of drama to the day was the appearance of embattled former party chair Kristina Karamo, who turned up on the convention floor before being escorted out by law enforcement officers.
Though Karamo said she was simply there to support a candidate and was not disrupting the proceedings, current party chair Pete Hoekstra maintained that unless she accepted the offer of a guests pass to observe things from the gallery, she would be ejected due to her lack of delegate status.
With the Great Lakes State widely acknowledged as one of the critical swing states that could make or break either presidential candidate's chances of winning the White House, the eyes of the country will continue to follow the substantial attention both parties are likely to pay to Michigan voters in the months to come.
A federal judge imposed a preliminary injunction on Attorney General Letitia James' ability to crack down on the speech of pro-life pregnancy centers, Just the News reported. The case involves whether these centers can recommend abortion pill reversal services to women regretting their decision.
James is attempting to deny centers the right to advise clients that there is a way to stop chemical abortions once they're started. Using anti-fraud laws, James pursued pro-life pregnancy centers that called abortion pill reversal safe and effective in social media posts, promotional materials, and other ads.
This prompted the Options Care Center, Gianna's House, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates to sue the state. Now, U.S. District Judge John Sinatra's order Thursday halts that action against the plaintiffs.
Caleb Dalton, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom representing the organizations, celebrated the ruling. "Women in New York have literally saved their babies from an in-progress chemical drug abortion because they had access to information through their local pregnancy centers."
Leftists in government on both coasts have attempted to limit the dissemination of information about abortion pill reversal. Attorneys General have sued pro-life pregnancy centers, but the win against James marks the "first substantial ruling" against this action.
The decision came from a Tump-appointed judge who noted that even if the government crackdown fell under "commercial speech," which is more regulated, he would still rule the same. Still, it sets the precedent for other cases that could proceed similarly.
Notably, other challenges to these legal crackdowns provide additional avenues to fight back. For instance, Bob Ferguson, who is the Washington attorney general and gubernatorial nominee, abandoned his pursuit after the Obria Medical Clinics PNW threatened to countersue after its insurer nonrenewed the medical group's policy which provided ammunition for legal action.
Unfortunately, these attacks are not just coming in the form of legal action from government officials. Crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations have been attacked 93 times since the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, was leaked.
"While the Department of Justice continues to mercilessly target peaceful pro-lifers, violent activists like those who vandalized Aid for Women, escape relatively unpunished," a news release from the organization said Friday. Instead, the justice system mounts its own attack on those seeking to save babies.
People who regret starting a chemical abortion have a right to know if there's a procedure that can halt the process that kills their babies. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit with the narrative pushed by pro-abortion politicians who attack life in the womb.
Proponents of abortion pill reversal claim that administering high doses of natural progesterone to women who have taken mifepristone, which blocks the hormone, negates the effects of the medication. Studies haven't specifically proven this, but an Ivy League-trained reproductive research chief told the New York Times that the mechanism "makes biological sense."
Even Planned Parenthood admits that the two-step drug protocol may not work if both drugs aren't given. "Studies on the abortion pill do show that if you take the first medicine but not the second, the abortion pill is less likely to work," a blog post on its site notes.
Another section outlining the protocol to induce abortion notes that the second medication, misoprostol, "causes the uterus to empty." This means if blocking progesterone doesn't kill a fetus, taking a pill that causes the body to expel the baby will finish the job.
It's no wonder the anti-life crowd doesn't want the public to know there may be an escape hatch before the second pill is taken. However, it's disturbing that they have the support of so many in the justice system to suppress that knowledge.