This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. House of Representatives has begun an investigation into the Democrat-aligned daughter of a judge who heard one of the lawfare cases that party has assembled against President Donald Trump.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, has launched the review of Loren Merchan, the daughter of Juan Merchan, who heard prosecutor Alvin Bragg's business records case against Trump.
A jury in the leftist enclave of Manhattan found against Trump on 34 counts after Merchan, the judge, repeatedly ruled against Trump, allowed salacious and irrelevant testimony in the case, and refused to allow a true expert on the topic to provide evidence.
Fox News explains Jordan has sent a letter to Loren Merchan, the Democrat party activist, supporter, and fundraiser, asking for documents about her financial interests that could have been affected by her father's rulings in the case.
Trump's lawyers had urged Merchan, the judge, to recuse himself from the case because of the obvious conflict of interest raised by his daughter's political and financial dealings involving the company Authentic Campaigns.
Trump's lawyers pointed out the company worked only with Democrats.
The fact is, they argued, Loren Merchan "has a direct financial interest in these proceedings by virtue of her ownership stake and leadership role at Authentic Campaigns, Inc."
Her company's clients included Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the former, and now current, opponent to Trump in the 2024 election.
Jordan pointed out, to Loren Merchan, "During your time working on behalf of Vice President Harris, Authentic Campaigns received over $7 million in compensation for its services. According to your now-deleted LinkedIn, after Vice President Harris dropped out of the Democrat primary, you were promoted to President of Authentic Campaigns."
The letter continued, "Authentic Campaigns then conducted work for the 2020 Biden-Harris campaign, which included 'digital paid media, design and development, social media, mobile messaging, [and] artificial intelligence.'"
Based on the funds collected by the firm through its work with top Democrats – also including Rep. Adam Schiff and the Senate Majority PAC – Jordan charged that at a minimum, "there is a perception that you and Authentic Campaigns could profit considerably from President Trump's prosecution in a forum overseen by your father."
Jordan is seeking "all contracts and invoices referring or relating to work performed by Authentic Campaigns" over its advocacy for the Biden and Harris campaigns and the Democratic National Committee from the period of Jan. 1, 2023 to the present.
Specifically, he wants access to any of Authentic Campaigns' "communications" that reference the case against Trump, including any "communications with her father … related to the indictment, prosecution or conviction of Trump."
WND previously reported the case involved bookkeeping issues within Trump's companies.
They would have been misdemeanors if they had been pursued then they happened, but the statute of limitations had expired. Bragg, however, demanded that they be treated as "felonies' because they allegedly were in pursuit of another crime, which he didn't specify.
It's one of multiple lawfare cases brought by Democrats in an apparent scheme to derail Trump's 2024 presidential race.
The behavior of Merchan, the judge, was cited at the time 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" that Merchan was 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."
He continued, "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."
A federal court has blocked net neutrality regulations that would have increased the federal government's power over the internet, the Washington Examiner reported. The Federal Communication Commission sought to reinstate the regulations first proposed under former President Barack Obama.
The FCC imposed the regulations in 2015, but former President Donald Trump nixed them shortly after taking office. The agency reinstated the regulations under President Joe Biden, but it was met with a legal challenge.
On Thursday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary injunction. "The final rule implicates a major question, and the commission has failed to satisfy the high bar for imposing such regulations," the decision stated.
"Net neutrality is likely a major question requiring clear congressional authorization," the court added. The regulations are suspended until legal arguments resume in the fall.
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel issued a statement denouncing the court's decision. "The American public wants an internet that is fast, open, and fair. Today’s decision by the Sixth Circuit is a setback, but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality," the statement said.
Net neutrality was proposed as a way to regulate internet providers in the name of fairness. The FCC rules would mean they fall under Title 2 of the Communications Act as common carriers, similar to phone companies and other utilities.
The companies would be forced to treat all content and carriers equally, which sounds good on paper, as government programs always do. However, critics point out that it is an unnecessary intervention and would lead to government overreach.
As Taxpayers Protection Alliance President David Williams put it, net neutrality was "an attempt to correct a problem that didn’t exist. And quite frankly, it’s just wanting to grow the size of government because this gives the FCC more power and more control over the internet."
While the FCC acts as if this would be for the benefit of the consumer, it's clear that the federal government has been attempting to get its tentacles into what goes over the internet. There is already proof of that meddling from the 2020 presidential election.
While the FCC wants to regulate data traffic, it's clear that other parts of the government are quite comfortable with censoring content. The proof comes from how the FBI handled the Hunter Biden laptop scandal in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
According to a July 2023 report in the New York Post, the FBI knew the laptop was authentic but pressured X, then Twitter, to censor the story about it. The laptop contained information linking Hunter Biden to shady business dealings with his father, who was running for office.
A letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials said the laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." The truth would come out years later that that was not only false but that they knew it and still pressured social media companies to quash it.
The Post's deputy politics editor Emma-Jo Morris, who penned the infamous scoop, summed up the reason. "This elaborate censorship conspiracy wasn’t because the information being reported on was false. It was because it was true. And it was a threat to the power centers in this country," Morris said in her testimony to Congress.
The FCC and other agencies should stay out of as many areas of American life as possible. Handing over the keys to the internet to these people is irresponsible and will lead to the loss of freedoms Americans already enjoy.
A Texas rancher is suing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for mishandling the southern border and allowing a "flood" of illegal immigrants to harm his property and livestock.
Rancher Michael Vicker has incurred thousands of dollars in damages from migrants crossing his property since 2021.
The aliens "routinely cause thousands of dollars in damage to fences or gates as they pass through the ranch," the lawsuit states.
The migrants also leave litter, causing significant environmental damage on his 1,000 acre-property and putting his cattle in harms' way.
"Aliens also deposit tons of trash and litter as they traverse Plaintiffs’ ranch, which compromises food and water sources for livestock."
"For instance, Plaintiff Vickers has autopsied cows with their rumen (large stomach) impacted with plastic bags and trash. Cattle also escape through cut fences and gates torn down by illegal aliens."
"Since early 2021, Plaintiff Vickers has incurred more than $50,000 in fence and gate damages alone. Plaintiff Vickers has also spent thousands of dollars to mitigate environmental damage."
Beyond the damage done, Vickers and his wife must be constantly armed because of an influx of criminal gang members from groups like MS-13.
The chaos is deliberate, Vickers claims, echoing Republicans who have long accused the Biden administration of pursuing an open border agenda.
The Biden-Harris administration "knowingly adopted numerous immigration policies … that, working in concert, encourage and facilitate the entrance and release of record numbers of illegal aliens into the United States while simultaneously preventing the removal of the vast majority of aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States," the lawsuit states.
In July, illegal immigration declined to its lowest point under Biden, but the impact of three and a half years of record border crossings is still being felt.
Democrats have been eager to downplay the chaos as Republicans ramp up attacks on presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris' role as "border czar."
The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of Vickers and Kinney County Sheriff Brad Coe, as well as Kinney County and Atascosa County. They are asking the judge for a sweeping injunction blocking Biden's immigration policies.
"We hope the court sees Biden’s war on the laws he is supposed to be enforcing as the constitutional offense it is, ends these policies, and grants an injunction,” IRLI executive director Dale Wilcox said.
Talking heads were in a frenzy and the headlines were flying when it was announced that the Supreme Court sided with Trump on presidential immunity.
However, according to a recent exclusive report by CNN, this case was one of the Supreme Court's toughest decisions since Chief Justice John Robers has presided over the nation's high court.
The report states that Roberts is no stranger to controversy and has often been criticized for his decision, with last minute switches and vote shifting marking his time in office.
Many consider these moves to be part of the chief justice participating in "playing politics," with a branch of government that shouldn't be partisan in any way.
In contrast, this was not the case in the spring of this year, when six conservatives nominated by the Republican party secured a quite extensive immunity from prosecution for former President Donald Trump.
As the justices convened in private in the oak-paneled conference room that is adjacent to the chief justice's chambers, sources who are acquainted with the negotiations told CNN that there was an early and straightforward 6-3 split.
There was not even a smidgen of the cross-ideological accord that distinguished decisions involving presidential powers in the past, and Roberts did not make any significant efforts to get the three liberal justices to concur with him. He believed he could persuade people to look beyond Trump.
During the previous decades, when the Supreme Court was faced with significant challenges to the power of the president, they have traditionally reached a consensus.
In spite of the fact that the bench and the entire Washington area are significantly more divided than they were in the past, Roberts was able to mediate compromises in two Trump document instances as recently as the year 2020.
The belief that Roberts would oppose any resounding victory for Trump and that a middle ground could be found on certain issues in the immunity dispute was conceivable to outsiders and even some justices within the court.
The chief justice's institutionalist inclination had been solidified in decision after decision over the previous two decades.
This is something Roberts spoke to frequently, including in 2018 when he chided Trump saying jurists have no political affiliation when they take on their robe:
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
The chief justice, who is now 69 years old and is about to begin his 20th term, appears to have dropped his typical concerns regarding the institution.
Hunter Biden's attorneys claimed they "never tried to mislead" in a legal motion Sunday despite incorrect wording that cuts favorably toward their client, The Hill reported. A federal judge threatened them with sanctions after attorneys used "false statements" in an attempt to get Biden's California case tossed.
The president's son is headed for trial in California in the coming months on charges of tax evasion. Biden is accused of failing to pay his federal taxes, totaling $1.4 million, from 2016 to 2019 and of filing false returns in 2018.
He supposedly used the proceeds to fuel his hedonistic lifestyle fueled by drugs and alcohol during that time and faces misdemeanor tax charges and nine felonies. In an effort to get Biden off the hook, his attorneys claimed that Biden was never charged until U.S. Attorney David Weiss was appointed special counsel.
This was an effort to have his trial tossed based on Weiss's appointment, similar to a decision in favor of former President Donald Trump with the same rationale. The judge dismissed Trump's classified documents case in Florida after finding that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was invalid.
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi reprimanded Biden's legal team for their incorrect assertion about when charges were filed and said they must "show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for making false statements in the motion." Biden's attorneys responded that they "never tried to mislead" the court.
"Defense counsel, perhaps inartfully, intended this use of the word ‘charges’ to refer to the current charges brought by indictment against Mr. Biden, not the lack of any charges at all. Here, context matters," his attorneys wrote.
However, it seems clear from their own words that they meant exactly what they wrote in the filing. "As U.S. Attorney, he had years to bring whatever charges he believed were merited, but he brought no charges until after he received the Special Counsel title that he sought," the incorrectly wrote about Weiss.
The judge pointed out last week that Weiss had charged Biden before being appointed as the special counsel. The attorneys for Biden have pledged to change the wording in the motion to reflect "indictments" instead of "charges" to clarify the supposed error.
They pleaded with the court to overlook the error rather than sanction them. "Nevertheless, there is no basis on which to sanction Mr. Biden’s counsel for using that one word, which was not misleading in the context in which the two prior Informations had been repeatedly addressed with the Court," the attorneys said in the motion.
It's difficult to see how Biden's lawyers could have made such an error about whether Weiss charged him before becoming special counsel. Before he was appointed, Weiss brokered the infamous sweetheart deal with Biden, Fox News reported.
In July 2023, Biden was facing felony tax charges and a felony gun charge when Weiss offered him a deal that would include no jail time. He would be able to go through a diversion program to get the gun charge dropped and just plead guilty to the tax charges.
Biden would have gotten away with it, except that Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware declined to accept the plea deal. She called it "not standard," "different from what I normally see," and unconstitutional.
By August 2023, Weiss was named special prosecutor on Biden's case. If unintentional, this kind of oversight in the timeline by Biden's attorney would be, at the very least, quite sloppy.
Because he's the son of President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden has been able to escape the consequences of his actions for a long time. That seems to be coming to an end for him despite the best efforts of his attorneys.
Former Donald Trump aide Mark Meadows has asked the Supreme Court to move his Georgia election "conspiracy" case into federal court.
It's the latest example of the cascading effect of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, which derailed Democratic efforts to prosecute Trump over the 2020 election.
Meadows' efforts to move his trial to federal court have been unsuccessful, so far.
An appeals court shot Meadows down last year but that was before the Supreme Court clarified that presidents have immunity from prosecution for their official acts.
The Supreme Court alluded to a chilling effect on U.S. presidents if they are exposed to prosecution for "official acts" upon leaving office.
Meadows has made similar arguments to push for his case to be moved to federal court. In his petition Friday, he doubled down, citing the Supreme Court's July ruling.
“As the Court explained … immunity exists not just to protect current officers from the distractions of litigation, but ‘to protect against the chilling effect [later legal] exposure might have on the carrying out of’ an officer’s duties,” Meadow’s lawyers wrote.
"It is hard to imagine a case in which the need for a federal forum is more pressing than one that requires resolving novel questions about the duties and powers of one of the most important federal offices in the Nation,” his lawyers added.
An appeals court rejected Meadows' federal removal claim in December, finding his charged conduct did not relate to his official functions.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Meadows pointed to the Supreme Court's finding that immunity extends to former officeholders.
“Just as immunity protection for former officers is critical to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from enthusiastic service, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to litigate that defense,” Meadows wrote.
Trump, Meadows, and 17 others were charged by Fani Willis, a far-left Fulton County prosecutor, last summer in the sprawling election "subversion" case.
The Georgia case has already been delayed past the 2024 election because of Willis' indiscretions with another prosecutor, which gave Trump and his lawyers an opening to seek her disqualification.
The Supreme Court's immunity ruling has also scrambled prosecutor Jack Smith's attempt to try Trump on federal charges relating to the 2020 election.
President Joe Biden was pushed out of the 2024 presidential race by his own party, but he's still desperate to chalk up a win for his side.
The elderly, lame-duck president promised last week to move forward with constitutional reforms to alter the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of the immunity decision that heavily favored former President Donald Trump with regard to his legal cases.
According to Fox News, Biden, who originally opposed "reforming" the high court, has reversed his decision and now vows to get it done before he leaves office.
Many believe he's only making the bold proposals to save whatever legacy he might have a shot at cementing before he leaves office as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.
Biden's proposals as far as reforming the Supreme Court are extreme, to say the least.
Fox News noted:
The president is expected to propose setting term limits for justices on the Supreme Court, which would require a constitutional amendment, and establishing an enforceable code of ethics, which could be enacted by Congress, Politico reported.
The 81-year-old president is also expected to announce support for a constitutional amendment that would essentially limit immunity for presidents and other high office-holders in the wake of Trump's immunity decision.
It's laughable to think that Biden, the most ineffective, lame leader in modern history, will have the political fortitude to convince enough members of Congress to take such extreme, desperate measures.
Fox News noted what it would take to amend anything:
The framers of the Constitution intentionally made it difficult to amend. A two-thirds majority of both the House and the Senate needs to pass any proposed amendment, which is then sent to the states for ratification. It must be approved by three-fourths — 38 — of the 50 states to become the supreme law of the land.
There are not many, if any, political observers, pundits or scholars who believe that such actions will ever be close to taking effect, making many wonder why he's wasting his time on that instead of helping working-class America recover from his disastrous policies that led to record inflation and economic turmoil.
Biden's proposals were largely mocked and written off by many across social media.
"First off, saying 'Biden to propose' anything is disingenuous. Biden doesn't know his own name anymore," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Unconstitutional and illegal. SCOTUS will invalidate it."
It's almost sad to see him waste his time on such silly ideas.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An Idaho woman has decided to fight – in a higher court – for permission to occupy her tiny home on wheels.
It was Jason Scott, a judge in district court in Ada County, who ruled against her use of her own home.
The situation is that the town of Meridian bans tiny homes on wheels, and also requires that if there is a secondary dwelling unit on a property the same person owns both.
The case being pursued by the Institute for Justice is on behalf of Chasidy Decker, a native of the Treasure Valley.
Because of the high cost of homes there, she bought a tiny home and arranged to park it on Meridian homeowner Robert Calacal's private property for rent.
The institute explained, "Although Chasidy and Robert were both happy with the arrangement, the city was not. Meridian Code Enforcement threatened Chasidy and Robert with fines and jail time if she didn't leave her only home. Chasidy and Robert filed a lawsuit in 2022 challenging the city's irrational and arbitrary ban on tiny homes on wheels for violating the Idaho Constitution."
"I'm devastated that, after waiting two years, I won't be able to move back into my tiny home on Robert's property anytime soon," Decker said in a statement released through her legal team.
"This is terrible news for tiny homeowners and others like me who need more affordable housing alternatives in Idaho."
Bob Beldon, a lawyer for the institute, said< "The city's requirement that the same person has to own both Chasidy's tiny home and Robert's house in order to get an SDU permit is irrational. But we will seek review of this ruling to help protect the property rights of Chasidy and Robert and other Idahoans who wish to make productive use of their residential property to provide more housing."
WND reported when the case developed the institute charged the city's actions were unconstitutional because the local ban on "tiny homes of wheels" actually violates the Idaho Constitution.
According to a report from the IJ's Matt Powers, the state constitution requires that all laws have a legitimate government interest.
"But Meridian's ban has none—Chasidy's home is perfectly safe, which Meridian conceded when they encouraged her to move it to an RV park to live in. The city also can't argue that her home would somehow affect the appearance of the neighborhood since her tiny home is perfectly legal to keep where it's parked—she just can't live in it," the report explained.
"At a time when so few housing options are available to low- and middle-income Americans, why is the city's zoning ordinance further reducing such options?" said IJ Senior Attorney Dan Alban. "Cities should be making it easier for residents to find affordable housing, not more difficult."
New York Attorney General Letitia James urged the Supreme Court to stay out of challenge to President Donald Trump's conviction, CNN reported. This comes after Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey argued that the New York court was depriving voters in his state from hearing from the GOP candidate.
Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in New York's hush money case and is awaiting sentencing. Meanwhile, he is still under a gag order that prevents him from speaking about certain aspects of the case against him.
According to Bailey, who is a Republican, the gag order and conviction impede voters in his state from hearing from the GOP presidential nominee. Bailey has initiated a lawsuit against New York, which would automatically trigger a response from the Supreme Court as the mediator.
However, James countered that there is no legal basis for Bailey's challenge. The attorney general said that entertaining this legal strategy "seriously undermines the integrity of the courts and risks setting a dangerous precedent that encourages a flood of similar, unmeritorious litigation."
The conviction in New York against Trump certainly has had an impact on the campaign and could influence the outcome of the election. After all, Trump has been tied up in courtrooms during the campaign and could even serve jail time before Election Day.
However, James argued that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Bailey's theory could become a bad precedent. "Allowing Missouri to file this suit for such relief against New York would permit an extraordinary and dangerous end-run around former President Trump’s ongoing state court proceedings and the statutory limitations on this Court’s jurisdiction to review state court decisions," James wrote.
James also contended that Missouri did not have standing to sue. Bailey claimed it was the impact on voters that would justify the lawsuit, whereas James disagreed, calling the harms to voters "speculative" in nature.
"The potential sentence and speech restrictions may prove no obstacle to the interests of people who wish to hear from former President Trump," James wrote. She added that sentencing has already been delayed "and may not occur" as the conviction could be overturned in light of another Supreme Court decision in favor of Trump's presidential immunity.
The attorney general accused Bailey of "impermissibly seeking to further the individual interests of former President Trump" with this novel strategy. Notably, the gag order against Trump is still in effect as the campaign season continues.
Truth be told, the legal action against Trump is most certainly having a significant impact on voters regardless of what James and others claim. Trump is in the middle of juggling four criminal indictments against him while also running for president, according to CBS News.
This has meant time wasted in courtrooms and money wasted on legal expenses as each passing day moves the nation closer to Election Day. The gag order against Trump in New York adds an additional layer, as the former president isn't even allowed to speak out against some aspects of it.
Perhaps it can be seen as a coincidence that just as Trump was seeking the presidency again, the wheels of justice suddenly started turning against him. It's undeniable that the timing and relative flimsiness of each particular case seem to point to political motives.
Trump has denied all of the allegations lobbed against him, and he's been successful at delaying or chipping away at the cases against him. Still, there's no denying that voters have suffered the consequences of their GOP candidate under legal attack.
Even if this particular legal challenge brought on behalf of the people of Missouri doesn't hold up, it at least sheds light on a very serious issue. With Trump as a candidate for president, he and his voters deserve better than this.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is urging a New York State judge not to toss former President Donald Trump's conviction in his hush-money case, The Hill reported. Trump's legal team has requested a review in light of a recent favorable U.S. Supreme Court decision for presidential immunity.
Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial in May. Sentencing was set to take place this month, but New York State Judge Juan Merchan has delayed it until September.
The judge will have to consider how the Supreme Court decision in favor of Trump's presidential immunity could impact the verdict. The high court ruled on the issue in relation to a separate trial.
However, Trump's legal team believes that the decision still nullifies the guilty verdict since some of his conduct, now protected by the office thanks to the immunity decision, was brought up during the trial. Merchan countered that the high court's decision does not provide sufficient justification for his New York case.
Trump's attorneys contended that because of the Supreme Court's decision, any "impermissible official-acts evidence" that made it into the Manhattan trial was inadmissible if it was adjacent to the "core" of his official capacity as president. For example, they argued that Trump's conversation with then-White House Communications Director Hope Hicks was improperly included.
Trump had discussed topics such as his activity on Twitter as president and his pardon power with Hicks. "In order to vindicate the Presidential immunity doctrine, and protect the interests implicated by its underpinnings, the jury’s verdicts must be vacated and the Indictment dismissed," the legal document argued in light of those discussions being included in the trial.
To rebut Trump's position, Bragg's office submitted a 69-page response that was released publicly Thursday. As NBC News reported, Bragg said in the filing that the immunity decision "has nothing to say about the defendant’s conviction" in the Manhattan case.
"At issue in the Supreme Court’s decision was whether defendant could be federally prosecuted ‘for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.’ The criminal charges here, by contrast, exclusively stem from defendant’s ‘unofficial acts’ — conduct for which 'there is no immunity,'" Bragg's filing said.
The district attorney went on to say that "the evidence that he claims is affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling constitutes only a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof that the jury considered in finding him guilty of all 34 felony charges beyond a reasonable doubt." It remains to be seen whether the court will agree with Bragg or Trump.
Regardless of how this particular matter is settled, the conviction itself was unprecedented. Trump is not only a former president but also a current Republican candidate for president.
Moreover, Trump also has the distinction of being the subject of four separate criminal cases, though the New York case is the first to turn up felony convictions, Reuters reported. These facts already hinted at a politically motivated justice system that was trying to keep Trump out of the running.
The former president warned that booking him into jail would be the final straw. "I'm not sure the public would stand for it. I think it'd be tough for the public to take. You know, at a certain point, there's a breaking point," Trump said in June.
This all came before what Fox News confirmed was an attempted assassination against Trump in July. After seeing Trump's enemies attempt to kill him, seeing him jailed might be a bridge too far indeed.
There are many angles Trump's attorneys can use to dismantle this sham conviction. If the immunity angle fails, perhaps one of the others would do the trick in a case that stands on shaky legal ground.