Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has finally dropped his reelection bid ahead of Friday's deadline after being convicted of corruption.
In addition to finally dropping his bid for reelection, Menendez officially resigned his seat, effective Aug. 20, next Tuesday.
Menendez confirmed his decision in a letter to New Jersey’s acting director of the state’s Division of Elections, Donna Barber, saying "By means of this email please be advised that as an Independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in this November’s election I am advising you that I wish to have my name withdrawn from the ballot."
This decision brings the end to Menendez's long and corrupt career as he has become the poster boy for New Jersey's corruption which has been a topic of discussion for years.
Menendez spent years in the Senate enriching himself while advocating for foreign nations and his fellow Democrats reportedly knew nothing about any of it.
Menendez has been in Congress for 31 years and the information coming out about him is a great argument for term limits for Congress.
He was convicted on 16 criminal counts all of which he has appealed and is using $3.3 million in campaign funds to bankroll his legal fees. Now that he has dropped out of the race he can no longer accept new donations.
Barring a major development in his appeals process he will be sentenced on October 29, and at worst he faces decades in prison.
He was convicted of charges of accepting bribes, including cash and gold bars, to benefit the governments of Egypt and Qatar. Much like how the Biden family has been selling influence, Menendez also sold his position to the highest bidder.
Damian Williams, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who prosecuted the case stated following the conviction that Menendez's "years of selling his office to the higher bidder have finally come to an end.”
Menendez defiantly claimed that he "never violated my public oath," and vowed to fight the conviction. While it remains to be seen what will happen with his appeal, Senate Democrats may be breathing a sigh of relief with Menendez dropping out.
Menendez was running against Representative Andy Kim (D-NJ) and Republican Curtis Bashaw. There was a real fear among Democrats that Menendez may have split the vote allowing Bashaw to take a surprise victory in a deep blue state.
Kim is the Democrat Party's chosen successor for Menendez but until Menendez actually dropped out of the race things weren't going according to plan.
Furthermore, Menendez's insistence on sticking around did more damage to Democrats who have had to act like nobody was aware of his thirty years of corruption and self-enrichment.
Now Bashaw's chances of stealing a surprise Senate seat are back in the ground but some of New Jersey's Republicans are hopeful that the general population will be so disgusted with the corruption that they will look for a change in leadership.
In a surprising turn, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch allied with the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court in a recent decision involving Title IX rules, Newsweek reported.
The high court upheld a lower court's injunction against new Title IX regulations intended to expand protections for gender identity and sexual orientation, with Gorsuch dissenting to partially lift the blockade.
The Biden administration introduced new Title IX rules on August 1, designed to reverse previous policies and broaden protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation. These regulations were set to replace those established under the Trump administration.
However, the implementation faced immediate legal challenges. A group of Republican-led states filed lawsuits against these regulations, which led to a temporary injunction in 26 states by federal courts, effectively blocking the new rules.
This legal battle escalated to the Supreme Court, which on a Friday decided not to lift the injunction while the appeals process was ongoing. This decision left the Biden administration's expanded protections in limbo.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, known for his conservative views, joined the Court's liberal justices in a dissenting opinion. Gorsuch argued that the injunction should be applied only to the provisions that were directly challenged, not to the entirety of the new rules.
This stance by Gorsuch is notable considering his historical perspective on similar issues. In 2021, he was part of a majority that affirmed protections for gender identity and sexual orientation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, highlighting his sometimes progressive views on civil rights.
The majority's decision maintains a broad injunction that affects not only the disputed provisions but also other unrelated aspects of the Title IX rules.
Among the blocked provisions are several critical protections, as outlined by the Biden administration. These include measures against discrimination based on pregnancy and breastfeeding, accommodations for breastfeeding students, and rights for foster parents and authorized caregivers to represent minors.
Additionally, these rules provided safeguards against retaliation for those who file Title IX complaints, aiming to ensure a safer and more equitable educational environment.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, aligning with Gorsuch, expressed her disagreement with the broad scope of the injunction, writing, "I would grant most of the Government's stay requests and leave enjoined only its enforcement of the three challenged provisions."
Responses to the Supreme Court's decision were mixed. A Department of Education spokesperson stated, "While we do not agree with this ruling, the Department stands by the final Title IX regulations released in April 2024, and we will continue to defend those rules in the expedited litigation in the lower courts."
On the other hand, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti welcomed the decision, commenting, "I am grateful that the Supreme Court of the United States agreed that no part of the Biden administration's Title IX rule should go into effect while the case proceeds."
Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights expressed disappointment and concern. Ria Tabacco Mar from the ACLU criticized the decision, stating, "Attacking trans people does nothing to address the real problems women and girls face." Similarly, Cathryn Oakley from the Human Rights Campaign remarked, "It is disappointing that the Supreme Court has allowed far-right forces to stop the implementation of critical civil rights protections for youth."
While Special Counsel Jack Smith has had an unbelievably bad stretch in his pursuance of former President Donald Trump on the legal front, it appears he's up to something big.
According to Law & Crime, the judge overseeing the Jan. 6 election interference case against Trump made an eye-raising move this week.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan reportedly entered a "completely classified and redacted one-page order onto the docket," making many wonder why the sudden secrecy in the case.
The case has only recently been revived by Smith in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that granted Trump a high level of immunity in being persecuted.
The outlet speculated that the classified filing could be related to pretrial evidence.
Law & Crime noted:
While impossible to know for certain at this juncture, it seems all too likely that the order’s contents include key pretrial evidence ordered to be kept under wraps in light of guidelines Chutkan set down in August 2023.
The outlet continued:
Significantly, prosecutors have long said that there is only a small amount of classified information underlying the Jan. 6 criminal case against Trump. When special counsel Jack Smith‘s legal team raised concerns last year that Trump’s public commentary on the case may intimidate witnesses or that he would disseminate grand jury materials to do the same, Chutkan set down a nuanced protective order governing discovery and grand jury materials following an Aug. 11, 2023 hearing.
While court observers are dying to know exactly what was entered by the judge, the outlet noted that Chutkan is a huge advocate of transparency and will only redact the most necessary elements of evidence.
It said that's especially true when it comes to such information being sensitive enough that it would protect the courtroom or witnesses tied to the case.
While Special Counsel Jack Smith is obviously up to something, two days ago, Newsweek reported that Trump and his lawyers are seeking to use classified documents for his defense.
In a boon to Trump's defense, the judge granted the use of some classified documents for his defense.
It was not made clear to what degree or what the contents of the documents were.
Clearly, both sides are once again gearing up for a major legal battle. Only time will tell who emerges victorious.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The United States Supreme Court has affirmed an injunction against the plans by Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to rewrite the definition of "sex" in federal law so that transgender politics are reflected – and protected.
The ADF, which has fought numerous court cases over the dispute, said Friday that it is representing female athletes, Christian teachers and a school board in two lawsuits that challenge the administration's willful decision to simply change the definition of the word – and create an entirely new law in the process.
Laws, of course, are created by Congress, not the White House.
What happened was that the court denied the Biden-Harris demand that would partly reinstate its "illegal attempt to change the meaning of the word 'sex' to include 'gender identity' in Title IX," the ADF said.
That's a federal law that protects equal opportunity for women in education and athletics.
The ruling came in two different legal challenges to the Biden-Harris scheme, the Cardona v. State of Tennessee case and the U.S. Department of Education v. State of Louisiana.
"The Supreme Court's decision upholds two recent federal appeals court rulings that halted the administration's unlawful rules in the states of Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia; and Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho. In one case, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent a West Virginia high-school female athlete and Christian Educators Association International; in the other, they represent a Louisiana school board serving more than 20,000 students," the ADF explained.
Jonathan Scruggs, an ADF official, said, "The Biden-Harris administration's radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women, undermines fairness, and threatens student safety and privacy.
"The Supreme Court rightly affirmed the 5th and 6th Circuit decisions to restrain the administration's illegal efforts to rewrite Title IX while these critical lawsuits continue. This administration is ignoring biological reality, science, and common sense. Female athletes, students, and teachers across the country are right to stand against the administration's adoption of extreme gender ideology, which would have devastating consequences for students, teachers, administrators, and families."
Transgenderism, and abortion, actually, have been two of the key agenda points of the Biden-Harris administration.
Their tenure in the White House has accomplished little else, what with inflation of more than 20% hitting consumers, a wide-open southern border through which terrorists have entered the country, massive "climate" spending, and more.
The Biden-Harris team demanded last spring that it would redefine "sex" in Title IX rules so that the law then would demand that "schools … ignore the biological distinction between male and female in favor of 'an individual's sense of their gender.'"
The ADF said that injuries would follow.
"The Department of Education's fundamental and radical rewriting of federal law would force schools across the country to embrace a controversial gender ideology that harms children—including the very children it claims to help. Schools will be required to allow males who identify as female to enter girls' private spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, and showers; to participate in girls' physical education classes; and—despite logically inconsistent disclaimers saying otherwise—to play on girls' sports teams."
There also are injunctions in several other cases that oppose the Biden-Harris ideology, including State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, Carroll Independent School District v. United State Department of Education and State of Arkansas v. U.S. Department of Education.
President Joe Biden and his administration took a massive hit this week at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a Title IX rule established earlier this year.
According to JustTheNews, the Biden administration asked the high court to enforce "new protections for LGBTQ students that have been blocked in multiple conservative states."
The fairly new rule, which was established under Title IX and aims to "protect students LGBTQ students from discrimination "based on sexual orientation and gender identity."
The new rule only took effect in some states in August, while many conservative-leaning states blocked it or have refused to enforce it.
In a 5--4 decision at the hands of the Supreme Court, the Biden administration's request that the protections be enforced was shot down.
Not surprisingly, the three liberal justices on the court dissented in the unsigned ruling, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joining them in disagreeing.
🚨BREAKING: In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS has struck down the Biden-Harris administration's rewrite of Title IX, which would have allowed men in women’s sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, dorms, and compelled speech.
HUGE win. Onward! pic.twitter.com/MwOmRYpgg3
— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) August 16, 2024
The high court's order made it clear how it feels about the issue at this point in time.
"On this limited record and in its emergency applications, the Government has not provided this Court a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts’ interim conclusions that the three provisions found likely to be unlawful are intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule," the decision read.
The new order will remain on "hold" in the following states: "Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia."
Users across social media immediately reacted to news of the high court blocking the Biden administration's request.
"Finally, some common sense. Protecting the integrity of women's spaces and sports is crucial. Onward indeed!" one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "It’s crazy we need the Supreme Court to step in on an issue that should be common sense."
"No, they didn’t strike down the law. They simply kept an injunction in place. So it’s a win, but not the final win we want. Also, keep doing what you’re doing. We need your voice," another user wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kamala Harris's cackle, her loud guffaw that breaks into her speech at the most inopportune times, is being described as a "sickening taunt" in a report about her actions when she successfully convicted an innocent man of murder, and their eyes met as he faced going to prison for what could be the rest of his life.
It is the Daily Mail that reported on that "taunt" from Harris in a case involve California man Jamal Trulove.
He was wrongfully convicted of murder by Harris, and he now has charged that she "laughed in his face when the verdict was read out in court."
His sentence was 50 years.
But it turned out he was framed by police for the shooting death of his friend Seu Kuka, in 2007.
Harris was the prosecutor in San Francisco at the time.
The conviction was overturned, but only after Trulove spent six years in prison for something he didn't do.
He eventually was paid $13.1 million by the city to settle his lawsuit over a conviction orchestrated by Harris.
In an interview with The Art of Dialogue talk show, he said he's been unable to shake Harris's cruel taunt.
"We locked eyes this one time, and she laughed," he said. "She literally just, like, kind of busted out laughing. Almost as if she was pointing like, 'ha-ha.' She didn't point, but that's how it felt."
He has said he'll be supporting Trump in this election.
Trulove, exonerated in a 2015 retrial, charged in his civil case that four officers fabricated evidence, forced a key eyewitness and withheld critical information.
The civil jury determined two homicide detectives violated his civil rights.
Worse than pursuing a wrongful conviction, Harris has been accused of trying to keep those convictions when they are documented as wrong.
It is Lara Bazelon, formerly director of Loyola Law School's Project for the Innocent, who explained, "Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors."
Judge Juan Merchan has once again rejected former President Donald Trump’s motion for recusal in a key New York criminal case.
Donald Trump's bid for Judge Juan Merchan's recusal was denied, marking the third such rejection over alleged conflicts involving the judge's daughter.
In a recent ruling, Judge Merchan dismissed the latest motion brought forth by Trump's legal team. This case against Trump, which includes multiple indictments, continues under Merchan’s oversight. Trump's attorneys argued that Merchan should step aside because his daughter's employment with a firm linked to Trump's political opponents might influence the judge's decisions.
Loren Merchan, the judge’s daughter, is employed by a progressive political consulting firm. Her firm’s clientele includes several of Trump’s adversaries, which was presented as a basis for the supposed conflict of interest. Despite these claims, Judge Merchan emphasized the lack of new evidence that would warrant his stepping down from the case.
The recusal motions hinged partly on Loren’s indirect connection to Vice President Kamala Harris, who is currently running against Trump in the upcoming presidential election. The judge has consistently found the arguments for his recusal to be based more on innuendo than on substantive legal concerns.
In his decision, Judge Merchan referred to the defense's repeated arguments and dismissed them as insufficient for recusal. “Counsel has merely repeated arguments that have already been denied by this and higher courts,” Merchan wrote. He criticized the defense’s reliance on previously rejected claims, noting them as rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated.
The House Judiciary Committee has also taken an interest in the allegations of a conflict of interest due to Loren Merchan’s professional ties. They have launched an investigation to examine whether these connections could have influenced the judicial proceedings in any way.
Amid these legal battles, Trump remains restricted by a gag order from Judge Merchan, which prevents him from publicly discussing the case, court staff, or their relatives. This has not stopped Trump from expressing his discontent on social media platforms, where he has vehemently criticized the proceedings.
On his Truth Social platform, Trump has equated the case to voter suppression and manipulation, invoking comparisons to the Soviet Union and decrying what he perceives as efforts to undermine his campaign. “So much to say, and I’m not allowed to say it. Must get U.S. Supreme Court involved. New York is trying to steal the Election!” he posted.
Judge Merchan's refusal to recuse himself is grounded in his firm belief that the allegations do not constitute a genuine conflict. “Innuendo and mischaracterizations do not a conflict create,” he stated, reinforcing that recusal is unnecessary.
This stance has been reiterated across multiple decisions regarding Trump’s motions for recusal. The consistency in Merchan’s rulings highlights his commitment to maintaining judicial integrity, despite the political pressures that such high-profile cases often bring.
Looking forward, Trump’s sentencing has been postponed until after the Supreme Court rules on a separate federal case concerning claims of immunity made by the former president. This decision indicates the complexities and broad implications of the legal issues surrounding Trump’s post-presidency challenges.
The refusal of recusal requests by Judge Merchan in Trump’s case could set a precedent for how similar requests are handled in politically sensitive cases. Legal experts suggest that the robust defense of judicial discretion in such contexts is crucial for upholding the independence of the judiciary.
As the case progresses, it remains to be seen how the findings of the House Judiciary Committee and the ongoing legal battles will influence public and political perceptions of the judiciary’s role in politically charged cases.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Ultra-zealous prosecutors, trying to jail as many people as they can from the Jan. 6 protest-turned-riot at the U.S. Capitol, have decided to submit to a Supreme Court ruling and eliminate "obstruction" charges from many of the cases.
The prosecutions of those at a rally held by President Donald Trump that day, after which a few hundred rioted at the Capitol and broke windows and doors, has been more intense than likely any other federal prosecution ever has been. Some defendants essentially are liable for misdemeanor offenses who have spent years in jails already awaiting trial.
One of the enhancers that prosecutors have been routinely applying to anyone at the events that day has been an obstruction charge. But now they're working through the paperwork to drop many of those allegations since the Supreme Court said it wasn't a proper use of the count.
The Washington Examiner said its review of court records found that many of those counts are being dropped.
It was in the Fischer v. United States case that the high court determined, 6-3, that Joe Biden's Department of Justice was improperly applying counts against defendants a statute that actually "only applies to conduct such as manipulation or destruction of documents."
The report noted Bill Shipley, a defense attorney who has represented dozens of Capitol defendants, told the publication the dispute is over an obstruction charge, known as 1512(c)(2). And he said prosecutors have been offering pleas to other charges.
The Examiner noted it spotted the emerging pattern in July, almost as soon as the Supreme Court ruling was announced.
Shipley said the government now is backtracking "in every case that is about to go to trial."
The report explained, "There are 259 people who have been charged with the felony obstruction count, according to the DOJ, with around 133 having already been sentenced. Around 50 people have been sentenced on obstruction charges and no other felony. Of those, about half are currently serving a sentence of incarceration, fewer than 2% of all charged cases."
The report cited the filing in the case against Deborah Lynn Lee, a 58-year-old woman from Pennsylvania who recently saw her felony obstruction charge deleted.
She still faces misdemeanors for allegedly entering or being in a restricted building and disorderly conduct, but the maximum possible penalty has been cut from 23 years to three.
In the case Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Diamond did not explain the dismissal of the felony count, the report said.
The changes will not mean the cases will be dropped entirely, as no defendant faced only that obstruction charge. Other counts often include entering the Capitol or simply being there without permission.
Meanwhile, prosecutors working for U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves's office have said in court filings they think the count still can be used.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said dropping the claims made sense.
"If a case is not scheduled for trial any time soon, the prosecutors can bide their time and try to negotiate some kind of guilty plea, knowing that, if negotiations fail, they can always dismiss the case down the road. But if the case is already scheduled for trial, and the prosecutors believe they can't win because of the Fischer decision, it's not surprising that they'd drop those cases."
Prosecutors claim that the convictions and sentences under the now-inapplicable provision for those whose cases already are resolved should remain.
The Fischer ruling also has, the report said, a significant impact on the lawfare cases that Democrats have created against President Trump.
In one case special counsel Jack Smith, claims he will keep using the count.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge hearing a defamation lawsuit brought against CNN for mischaracterizing a company helping with the evacuation of victims when Joe Biden pulled America's troops out of Afghanistan and gave the country to the Taliban is allowing network show host Jake Tapper to be grilled in a deposition.
This after the judge expressly doubted Tapper's truthfulness.
WND previously reported when the declining network attempted to justify its description as a criminal of Navy veteran Zachary Young, whose company worked to get people out of Afghanistan when Biden's retreat – and abandonment of billions of dollars worth of American war machinery – came out of the White House.
It supported its description of Young as a criminal because he would be considered criminal under Shariah law – that set of codes imposed by Islam.
The rules are known for their extremism, such as a call for the amputation of a thief's hands, for killing people for criticizing the Quran, for killing people who deny Muhammad was a prophet, for killing people who lead a Muslim away from Islam, for killing a non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman, for killing homosexuals (although sodomizing young boys is allowed), and for "taqiyya" or lying to non-Muslims.
A Revolver report had explained, "They're legitimizing (and defending) Sharia Law, which routinely abuses women, sometimes to death, to try and win that billion-dollar lawsuit. In the process, they're also branding the Navy Vet at the center of the defamation suit a 'criminal' for trying to save women's lives."
Now constitutional expert and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley notes that the fight is over CNN's agenda to cast Young in a bad light through a report about "Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success."
On the program, "The Lead with Jake Tapper," CNN's Alex Marquardt claimed "desperate Afghans are being exploited," naming Young.
The judge already has ruled Young can seek punitive damages because he "sufficiently proffered evidence of actual malice, express malice, and a level of conduct outrageous enough to open the door for him to seek punitive damages."
Those included internal messaging at CNN that the network wanted the story to be Young's "funeral" and its descriptions of Young in obscene terms.
The judge's decision to allow the deposition of Tapper followed his reported comments that "I kind of have a hard time believing what Mr. Tapper put in that declaration.," Turley reported.
"Since that is a sworn declaration made under penalty of perjury, it was a stinging rebuke," Turley said.
Depositions already have detailed the evidence in the case, and the next step is to consider the network's financial position.
Turley said, "The court believes that Tapper could have some relevant information since he holds one of the most lucrative contracts at CNN and is familiar with the corporate finances concerning his show."
Please be aware of multiple instances of offensive language in the following:
CNN claims it was right to suggest criminality in Young's behavior because, "To get women out, the operators on the ground were required either to break the law directly or to find someone to break the law for them." That would be Shariah law.
Michael Cohen, who was an attorney for former President Donald Trump before turning against him, appealed to the Supreme Court seeking damages relating to his imprisonment, Slate reported. The news outlet outlined the issue in a piece co-authored by Cohen's friend and his attorney, while another outlet called the case a "long shot."
In an effort to drum up support for Cohen, Slate printed a piece titled, "Donald Trump Jailed a Critic During His First Term. Does the Supreme Court Care?" The authors assert that Cohen was kept in jail in retaliation for turning against Trump and attempting to write a tell-all book.
"It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut violation of the Constitution than jailing an American for expressing his political opinions. But, as a federal judge found, that is what happened to Donald Trump’s attorney-turned-adversary Michael Cohen in the summer of 2020," the article began.
"Americans can agree that the courts must provide an adequate remedy for that wrong, as argued in a new amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Wednesday," authors Jon Dougherty, Cohen's attorney, and Norman L. Eisen, Cohen's friend, wrote. This passionate plea is anything but impartial.
The article describes Cohen's conviction as a grave injustice and urges Americans to join them in the fight to recover supposed damages. "Despite all the coverage of Cohen, his unlawful imprisonment is an overlooked episode of the first Trump administration," the piece said.
"A federal judge found that Cohen had been incarcerated in 'retaliation' for his choice to speak critically of the president and ordered him to be released. But when Cohen filed a damages lawsuit against the individual officials responsible, two federal courts dismissed it, effectively ruling that there is no consequence for officials who imprison critics of the president," the authors claimed.
They contend that Cohen was only offered release from prison after agreeing to sign a nondisclosure agreement. A judge eventually reversed that decision and allowed Cohen to profit from his sleazy betrayal.
Still, the authors warned about the consequences of not punishing Trump and other officials for an alleged limit on Cohen's freedom of speech. "The courts must provide a deterrent remedy to right this wrong, or these 'freedoms' will become illusory. A Bivens action for damages provides such a deterrent," the authors asserted.
"An order telling the federal officials to stop what they are doing, without any further consequences for those officials, does not. Without a deterrent remedy for this particular abuse of power, we are confronted with profound implications for American life and rights: Free speech, a free press, unfettered scholarship, frequent and loud protest, and more are at stake."
These hyperbolic warnings fall flat in the face of the facts, as even MSNBC pointed out. The outlet noted that the appeal is a "long shot" for Cohen and will likely amount to nothing.
Still, as a writer for the establishment media outlet, MSNBC's Jordan Rubin threw in that Cohen's case was consequential because of an abuse of power. "[T]he case highlights the dangers of officials retaliating against critics without a legal remedy to check that behavior," Rubin wrote.
"It’s an issue that goes beyond Trump and Cohen, but it’s especially difficult to ignore in the shadow of a potential revenge-packed second Trump term," he warned. However, this warning falls flat in light of what the left has done to Trump since he left office.
The former president has been the victim of lawfare with four criminal prosecutions built on flimsy charges have been stacked against him. Trump's enemies were literally trying to imprison him and interrupt his candidacy just ahead of the 2024 election.
Despite the media's appeal, Cohen is not a sympathetic figure to most Americans. The attempt to turn his case into a cautionary tale falls flat in the face of what was actually done to Trump.