This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, whose "organized crime" case against President Donald Trump is in disarray after she hired her paramour, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700,000, to work on it, then took luxury vacations with him, has learned that it is at a standstill now at least until December.
Willis brought a long list of charges against Trump and more than a dozen others over their statements regarding the 2020 presidential election. She tried to push the case through quickly, meaning that her intended trial would take place before the election.
However, because of her scandalous behavior regarding her hired boyfriend, a trial judge ordered him off the case, but allowed Willis to stay. Trump's lawyers and others interested in the case then filed an appeal, insisting that Willis, too, be booted.
The appeals court will at that time review the decision from Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee that allowed Willis to remain.
The report said the decision means Willis' claims "will remain on hold into the new year."
The report said Trump faces 10 counts in Georgia over what Willis has claimed was a scheme to overturn the state's results from the 2020 election. All defendants have pleaded not guilty, but four later took plea agreements.
"Proceedings were derailed earlier this year after one of those co-defendants, GOP operative Michael Roman, claimed Willis and Wade had an improper romantic relationship that Willis financially benefited from it. Roman claimed the relationship began before Wade was hired in November 2021 to work on the case involving Trump, and he sought to have Willis and her office disqualified and the charges dismissed. Trump and several others joined Roman's motion claiming the prosecution was invalid and unconstitutional," the report explained.
In fact, they both admitted to the romantic involvement, and McAfee eventually criticized Willis for her "tremendous lapse in judgment" and said an "odor of mendacity" hung over the case. But inexplicably based on the standard ethics code that even the "appearance" of conflict disqualifies a prosecutor, he let her stay.
One of the outside interests asking to join the case on behalf of Trump is the American Center for Law and Justice.
That organization announced it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeals court calling for Willis to be removed from the case entirely.
The organization explained, "As we told you when the trial judge's decision on Fani Willis first came out, the judge's ruling made simply no sense. The judge found as fact that Fani Willis' conduct had an 'appearance of impropriety,' based on her relationship with Nathan Wade. Nonetheless, the judge allowed Willis to proceed with the prosecution anyway. The facts are clear that Willis must be disqualified from overseeing the high-profile election interference case against President Trump."
The ACLJ listed the facts:
"Willis appointed her alleged romantic partner, Nathan Wade, as special prosecutor – paying him over $650,000 in taxpayer money.
"She appears to have benefited personally from this appointment, taking lavish vacations funded by Wade's earnings from the case.
"Willis and Wade seemingly attempted to conceal their relationship, only admitting to it after being cornered by evidence."
What's present in the situation appears to be "corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power," the ACLJ said.
"How can the people of Georgia – or indeed, all Americans – have any faith in the integrity and impartiality of this prosecution? The Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, free from conflicts of interest or impropriety. Willis' actions have irreparably tainted this case," the ACLJ argues.
The lawyers noted, "the mere appearance of such misconduct is sufficient grounds for disqualification under Georgia law and ethical standards. We emphasized that even an appearance of impropriety is inherently unacceptable and erodes the public's trust in the judicial process. In the present case, merely stopping the continuation of the 'repeatedly'-made 'bad choices' by removing Nathan Wade is not enough."
The taint that attaches to case through such conflicts cannot be corrected or remedied "after the fact," the brief argues.
The Supreme Court halted the execution of a Texas man convicted of murder only moments before he was scheduled to be put to death, leaving the condemned man "shocked" and in tears.
47-year-old Ruben Gutierrez was convicted for the 1998 murder of an elderly woman during a robbery in Brownsville, Texas. The Supreme Court's order puts the execution on hold indefinitely.
Gutierrez was informed of the court's stay only minutes before his scheduled execution Tuesday night at 6 p.m. CT in Huntsville.
"He was visibly emotional," prison spokeswoman Amanda Hernandez said, adding he was not expecting the court stay. "We asked him if he wanted to make a statement but he needed a minute."
“He turned around to the back of the cell, covered his mouth. He was tearing up, speechless. He was shocked.”
Gutierrez has admitted that he plotted to rob 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison, but he says he wasn't inside when she was stabbed to death with a screwdriver.
Two other people were charged in the robbery: Rene Garcia, who is serving a life sentence; and Pedro Gracia, the alleged getaway driver, who remains at large.
On September 5, 1998, the three men robbed Harrison, a retired elementary school teacher who kept $600,000 in a safe because she mistrusted banks.
Harrison made the mistake of trusting Gutierrez, who learned about the safe by befriending her and doing errands for her.
She was beaten and stabbed 13 times with two screwdrivers, and defensive wounds showed she fought for her life. The suspects fled with at least $56,000.
In 1999, Gutierrez was convicted under the Texas law of parties, which says a person can be held liable for the actions of others if they assist or encourage the commission of a crime.
Since 2009, Gutierrez has sought DNA testing that he says would exonerate him of the crime. Prosecutors say Gutierrez was justly convicted and that the DNA request is a delay tactic.
“Gutierrez purposefully forewent DNA testing at his trial in 1999, and he has leveraged that strategic decision for the last 20 years to delay enforcement of his sentence," prosecutors wrote this month.
Kim Kardashian, a criminal justice reform advocate, celebrated the Supreme Court's stay.
This isn't the first time Gutierrez's life was spared at the last minute. The Supreme Court also issued a stay just an hour before his execution in 2020 after his lawyers argued he was denied the right to be accompanied by a priest.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden, in what appears to be an effort to shore up and solidify his leftist voting base, is considering dramatic changes to the U.S. Supreme Court in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.
Biden, trailing Republican nominee President Donald Trump in most polling these days, has a disorganized party behind him, following his displays of disorientation, confusion and worse in recent appearances, including where he called Ukraine's leader "President Putin" and his own vice president "Trump."
Reports explain he wants to interfere in the judiciary by demanding term limits for justices and imposing procedures where the executive or legislative branches could retaliate against justices for actions and opinions they dislike – under the guise of an "enforceable" code of ethics, actions considered to be aimed at undermining the independence of the judiciary.
One report pointed out, "Shaking up the Supreme Court may be Biden's way of trying to woo progressives back into his camp who are angry about some of the Supreme Court's recent decisions, including the immunity ruling and the change in federal abortion laws with the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022."
Extremists like U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., have repeatedly attacked the court for its ruling that the Roe v. Wade decision that originally created an abortion "right" in the Constitution was faulty, and its decision that presidents have immunity for most acts while in office.
It was the Washington Post that said its sources confirmed Biden's pre-election scheme to propose changes to the court as well as push for a constitutional amendment that would eliminate immunity for presidents.
Reports said Biden launched the agenda during an online discussion with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"I'm going to need your help on the Supreme Court … I'm about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court."
Trump responded with a statement in which he accused Democrats of "illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court."
He said, "The Radical Left Democrats are desperately trying to 'Play the Ref' by calling for an illegal and unConstitutional attack on our SACRED United States Supreme Court. The reason that these Communists are so despondent is that their unLawful Witch Hunts are failing everywhere. The Democrats are attempting to interfere in the Presidential Election, and destroy our Justice System, by attacking their Political Opponent, ME, and our Honorable Supreme Court. We have to fight for our Fair and Independent Courts, and protect our Country. MAGA2024!"
Democrats have taken to openly bashing individual justices who make decisions that don't align with the Democrat Party agenda. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for example, took a microphone at a pro-abortion rally on the steps of the court and individual threatened Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Democrats repeatedly have attacked conservative justices for their friendships, their travels, and more, even though when the late Ruth Ginsburg was a justice – and openly berated then-candidate Donald Trump – they ignored such political and ethical issues.
A report pointed out, "Biden's desire to take some action comes as he desperately tries to win back confidence from his own party in the wake of his disastrous debate performance last month. Since then, Democratic donors, lawmakers and famous figures have publicly called for him to step aside to allow another Democratic candidate to top the ticket."
Kelly Shackelford, chief of the influential First Liberty Institute, reminded Americans that Biden himself once called interfering with the court a "bonehead" idea.
"Transforming the Supreme Court into another partisan body would destroy the independence of the judiciary and threaten the civil liberties of all Americans. Joe Biden once said that changing the structure of the court was 'a bonehead idea' that would 'put in question … the independence of the … Supreme Court.' He was right. The last thing we need in this country right now is a Supreme Court coup that would threaten judicial independence and our democratic republic. This is a radical attempt by a desperate politician."
He reported polling shows 72% of Americans say the politicization of the Supreme Court threatens judicial independence and 69% do not want Congress taking over and setting rules for judicial ethics.
NBC News' chief political analyst Chuck Todd said the reports are signs of Biden's "desperation."
"Look at the desperation in the air for Joe Biden right now," Todd said. "All of the sudden, out of nowhere, he's trying to do a Supreme Court reform for another way of playing to the left, because right now his biggest supporters are progressives. Because those that are in swing districts, they want him off [the ticket]."
In a decisive legal turn, a judge has dismissed a classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, who in turn is demanding the cessation of all other legal actions against him, Newsmax reported.
A federal judge's decision to terminate the classified documents case against Trump marks a significant legal victory for the former president amidst a string of ongoing charges.
On Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that the classified documents case, which has drawn national attention, would be dismissed due to the "unlawful appointment" of special counsel Jack Smith, who led the prosecution against Trump. This ruling comes as Trump faces multiple legal battles on various fronts.
Aside from the now-dismissed case concerning classified documents, Trump is accused of attempting to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election results. These allegations extend to actions in both federal and state courts, with separate charges accusing him of trying to overturn election results in Georgia.
Moreover, Trump has faced legal scrutiny in other areas: he has been convicted of falsifying business records in relation to payments made to an adult film star prior to the 2016 election and found liable in a separate case of sexual assault against a former advice columnist.
Following the dismissal of his case, Trump took to Truth Social to express his views on the broader legal landscape. He described the various legal actions against him as "witch hunts" and called for their termination. His posts also referenced a recent assassination attempt against him, which occurred during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
This assassination attempt not only targeted Trump, resulting in him being shot in the ear but also led to the death of a spectator and injuries to two others. The perpetrator, a 20-year-old male, was killed by the Secret Service at the scene.
Trump's legal and personal ordeals have unfolded alongside his political activities. He has been the presumptive GOP presidential nominee since his early victories in this year's primaries. His potential nomination is expected to be formalized at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.
In a recent interview on his private plane, Trump suggested President Biden might direct the Justice Department to drop the remaining prosecutions against him. He labeled the coordinated legal actions as a form of election interference, orchestrated by what he terms the "Democrat Justice Department."
In his statements, Trump emphasized the need for national unity and legal reform. He directly accused the Justice Department of politicizing its powers against him as a form of election interference and a violation of justice.
"As we move forward in uniting our nation after the horrific events on Saturday, this dismissal of the lawless indictment in Florida should be just the first step, followed quickly by the dismissal of all the witch hunts," Trump stated, outlining his perspective on the broader implications of his legal battles.
Throughout his legal and public ordeals, Trump has remained a divisive figure in American politics. His recent legal victory, combined with his comments and the assassination attempt, highlights the turbulent intersection of his legal and political narratives.
In conclusion, former President Donald Trump views the dismissal of the classified documents case as a precedent that should lead to the dismissal of all other legal charges against him, which he claims are politically motivated. This ongoing saga continues to stir significant public and political discourse as Trump heads towards the Republican National Convention.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
‘Investigators won’t have to explain why evidence is not in the same condition as it was after the Mar-a-Lago raid or why some of the alleged verboten documents are missing’
Misconduct and malfeasance were on the stage during Jack Smith's partisan prosecution of President Donald Trump over his possession of various documents from his presidency.
Smith accused Trump of a long list of charges for having the papers in his Mar-a-Lago home, which was targeted by a SWAT-style FBI raid to "recover" them, even though Trump's lawyers were working with federal officials to determine what documents Trump was entitled to keep from his time in office.
But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon this week dismissed the case entirely, pointing out that Smith never was appointed legally, so had no more authority to file charges against Trump than a man in the street.
Legal commentary Julie Kelly, an expert investigator who has documented the Department of Justice’s weaponization against Trump, said Cannon did Smith “and the entire Biden regime,” a favor with the ruling.
"Cannon's death-by-a-thousand-cuts dismantling of the case will finally stop Smith's bleeding," Kelly wrote. "Shocking revelations about the dirty, sloppy, corrupt, and dishonest nature of the investigation and prosecution will end, at least for now. Smith won't have to defend his baseless and petulant gag order seeking to prohibit Trump from publicly criticizing law enforcement agents involved in the case.
"FBI agents won't have to take the stand to defend the unprecedented raid of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 or admit they used classified cover sheets as props or how they violated the search warrant to unnecessarily ransack the bedroom of Melania Trump and Barron Trump.
"Investigators won't have to explain why evidence is not in the same condition as it was after the Mar-a-Lago raid or why some of the alleged verboten documents are missing," she explained.
"DOJ officials including deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco won't have to disclose her collaboration with the National Archives to concoct a documents crime against Donald Trump as early as mid-2021, long before anyone allegedly found 'classified' papers in the boxes the former president turned over to the archives.
"On that score, NARA officials including former archivist David Ferriero—an Obama appointee who called January 6 the worst day of his life—won't have to testify about why he started harassing and threatening Trump's transition team with legal action just a few months after Trump left office, something he had no authority to do and admitted he had never done before.
"Or why he and NARA general counsel Gary Stern visited the White House on at least a few occasions in 2021, months before the purported opening of the official criminal investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents, For now, a jury and the public won't see meeting notes and correspondence between NARA and top White House officials including Biden's general counsel and chief of staff."
Or maybe all of this will be appearing soon – in a courtroom and on the websites of responsible news publications.
That's because Smith claims he will be filing an appeal.
He insisted that he wanted a different outcome. "The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the attorney general is statutorily authorized to appoint a special counsel. The Justice Department has authorized the special counsel to appeal the court's order," a spokesman for Smith said.
Of course, the statement didn't point out that Cannon had, under the American judicial system, a right to conclude differently from other "courts."
Cannon's opinion, 93 pages in detail, has been described by commentators as "strongly reasoned."
Kelly explained Smith should thank Cannon for eliminating the case.
"Cannon just spared the special counsel and his team months of continued humiliation in her Florida courtroom and, eventually, in front of the nation," Kelly said.
Trump's lawyers had explained Smith's appointment violated both the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution.
Smith claimed he was legitimate, although his backing came, Kelly said, only from "random" federal statutes, "none that specifically designates the appointment of a special counsel since the Independent Counsel Act expired in 1999."
Trump's opinion was endorsed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese and Michael Mukaseyj, and the dispute also was raised by Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court. He said for the prosecution of Trump to continue, the issue of the legitimacy of Smith's claims would have to be resolved.
He said the problem facing Smith is not a "trifling technicality."
Immediately after Cannon's ruling, leftists raged, claiming that Cannon should be removed from the case, and worse.
But Kelly explained Smith should have been thanking "his lucky stars, to the extent he has any, that the American people won't see his ineptitude up close in any trial in southern Florida."
The judge in a case prosecuted by Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis has been replaced and a new judge assigned after it was revealed that he met with a witness and prosecutors without the defense being present.
Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause ruled Monday to grant a defense motion to remove Judge Ural Glanville. The case, which has been going on since November, was reassigned almost immediately to Judge Shukura Ingram.
"This court has no doubt that Judge Glanville can and would continue presiding fairly over this matter it the recusal motions were denied," Krause wrote. "But the 'necessity of preserving the public's confidence in the judicial system' weighs in favor of excusing Judge Glanville from further handling of this case."
Grammy-winning rapper Young Thug, whose real name is Jeffrey Williams, and 27 other defendants were indicted on racketeering, drug, and gun charges for allegedly participating in the street gang Young Slime Life, or YSL, which is also the name of Williams' record label.
Williams claims the label stands for Young Stoner Life, and is not related to the gang, however.
The case blew apart when defense attorney Bryan Steel somehow found out that witness Lil Woody, whose real name is Kenneth Copeland, and prosecutors met with the judge on June 10 but excluded defense counsel.
The meeting concerned threats to jail Copeland if he continued to refuse to testify.
The judge then demanded to know how Steel found out about the meeting and held him in contempt when he refused to say. He sentenced Steel to 20 days in jail, but an appeals court threw out the jail sentence.
Willis is better known as the prosecutor who charged former President Donald Trump with similar racketeering charges as well as obstruction for allegedly trying to overturn election results in Georgia between November 2020 and January 2021.
That case is on hold while an appeal of a ruling against replacing Willis is heard. A hearing in that appeal was just scheduled for December, meaning the case won't move forward until after the election.
At issue then will be whether any of the charges can still go forward after the Supreme Court ruled former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for official acts during their tenure.
Trump's team asked for Willis to be replaced after it was discovered that she was engaged in a sexual relationship with her lead prosecutor Nathan Wade.
The relationship is still being investigated, particularly the question of whether any funds were diverted to Wade that were then spent on vacations for the two of them.
Willis has denied all wrongdoing in the matter, and Wade stepped down from the case after a judge ruled that both of them could not stay on it.
Attorney Adam Cohen believes the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity has limited scope for former President Donald Trump, according to his opinion piece published in The Hill. Cohen said Trump v. United States is not the sweeping license some are making it out to be.
Cohen, a partner at Walden Macht Haran and Williams, attempted to explain the decision that virtually nullified the prosecution's case in Washington, D.C. and baffled Trump's critics. The attorney explained that it was not a blank check for the former president as the left was declaring.
"This court has deliberately curtailed executive power, has shown a strong preference to decide only questions before it and no more, and has strong institutionalist and textualist leanings. A new, broad presidential immunity rule, which is how many commentators understand its ruling in the Trump case, seems inconsistent with these principles," Cohen explained.
The lawyer called other analyses that came to any other conclusion "[l]azy and thoughtless." Instead, he provided a "better interpretation" of the case that "fits comfortably within the court’s judicial philosophy."
Contrary to the hysterical interpretation of the decision, Cohen believes that it merely fleshed out what's already outlined in the Constitution. The rule articulated in the recent Supreme Court decision clarifies that "the legislative branch cannot make any laws, including criminal laws, to restrict" the president.
"So the president cannot be prosecuted for a veto or an appointment, for example," Cohen added. Even the example the dissenting judges gave about "a president who stages a coup, assassinates a rival, or takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon" would not be possible under the new interpretation.
"None of these hypothetical fact patterns would qualify for 'absolute immunity' because each involves competing Constitutional powers. In such cases, the president’s acts would not be 'conclusive and preclusive," Cohen went on.
"Each would also involve unofficial conduct, which remains fully prosecutable. Presumptive immunity would be overcome for the same reasons," the attorney explained.
Presidential immunity is also already limited by the Constitution "listing bribery as an impeachable offense and stating that any party impeached and convicted by the U.S. Senate 'shall' be subject to criminal prosecution." The majority opinion specifically outlined the offense as something that becomes "unofficial conduct" that "can be prosecuted," shoring up such a limitation.
The most compelling aspect of Cohen's explanation comes from the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed cognizant of Trump's "threats of retribution" if he should get elected. Roberts seemed to want to limit immunity so that Trump could not prosecute his predecessor should he become president.
"Roberts wrote that the greater threat facing the nation is not a tyrannical presidency (for which there are other judicial remedies), but 'an executive branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. Roberts is nothing if not consistent," Cohen observed.
"Twelve years ago, as the fifth vote to save the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius, he wrote, 'It is not our job to save the people from the consequences of their electoral choices.' It is clear he still feels that way, and he is right," Cohen added.
"Ultimately, it is up to us to make better electoral choices if we want to get out of this mess. But make no mistake: the chief justice left plenty of room for a future court to distinguish the Trump ruling and hold a corrupt or treasonous president subject to criminal prosecution," Cohen added.
The left attempted to smear the court by using incorrect rationale for finding in Trump's favor. However, as Cohen proves, this was a solid decision by the Supreme Court that does not give any president unfair leeway.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge on Monday dismissed Jack Smith's created classified documents case against President Donald Trump because Smith's appointment violated the Constitution.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley said, “The dismissal of the classified documents case is a seismic development. From the beginning of all of these cases, I have said that the Mar-a-Lago case was the greatest threat to the former president. It is now dismissed.”
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon said the Biden administration, in its "lawfare" against Trump, illegally handed the authority of the United States government to a prosecutor who was not confirmed by the Senate.
Cannon's ruling said, "Former President Trump's motion to dismiss indictment based on the unlawful appointment and funding of special counsel Jack Smith is granted in accordance with this order … The superseding indictment is dismissed because special counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. … Special counsel Smith's use of a permanent indefinite appropriation also violates the Appropriations Clause … but the court need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds."
Trump also had pointed out that the FBI already had confessed that it destroyed exculpatory evidence during its stunning, armed 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago residence.
Trump's filings with the court suggested a political motivation in the case. His team, in fact, had been working with federal officials to address disputes over what Trump was entitled to have as papers from his administration and what the government wanted returned when the FBI launched its SWAT-style assault on Trump's home.
Thomas said Smith was not a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney.
"Even if the special counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the attorney general filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause," Thomas charged. "For example, it must be determined whether the special counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the special counsel was not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be."
Bret Baier of Fox News spoke with Trump by phone, and indicated Trump said: "I am thrilled that a judge had the courage and wisdom to do this. This has big, big implications … This is a big, big deal. It only makes this convention more positive."
Trump, at the Republican National Convention this week, also confirmed he's going to announce his pick for vice president Monday.
Trump's lawyers said since Smith's appointment violated the Constitution that left Smith essentially a "private citizen" without any authority whatsoever. That position had been supported by former attorneys general under George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
Thomas had written "None of the statutes cited by the attorney general appears to create an office for the special counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose," Thomas said. Congress gave the attorney general the power to appoint "additional officers … as he deems necessary" — but, only for the Bureau of Prisons.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a commentary only days ago, "The Constitution's Appointments Clause limits how executive offices can be created and how they may be filled. Before the Revolution, the king could both create and fill offices. The Constitution eliminated that power by giving Congress the authority to create offices or to authorize their creation in specific instances, and requiring the advice and consent of the Senate before the president could fill certain offices. It empowers the president to nominate and appoint 'officers of the United States' not specifically provided for in the Constitution only with the advice and consent of the Senate, and only to offices 'which shall be established by Law.' The Appointments Clause does allow for the appointment of officers by the president, a court or the head of a department—such as the attorney general—but, again, only when such appointment is permitted 'by Law.'"
He pointed out Smith's appointment lacked any authority under the "Law."
The ruling identifies the push for the "lawfare" against Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice, a department Trump has accused Joe Biden of weaponizing against him.
The case also had confirmed Trump's charges of a two-tiered justice system in America. Another "special counsel" found that Joe Biden had knowingly and willingly taken classified documents to which he was not entitled and kept them. He used them with a ghost writer who was working for him. And he stored them in his home, his private office and even in a relatively unsecured garage.
But the counsel, Robert Hur, recommended against charges against the octegenarian, citing his "diminished" mental abilities.
His decision sent Democrats supporting Biden for another term in office into a rage.
A Florida man charged with illegal "parading" asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal this week, and if they agree, it could impact 400 similarly charged defendants.
57-year-old John Nassif has already been convicted and served a 7-month jail sentence, but he still believes the charge was wrong and wants to see it reversed.
Parading was not the only charge levied against Nassif; he was also charged with disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building and violent entry in a Capitol building.
The judge who oversaw Nassif's case, U.S District Judge John Bates, previously rejected dismissing the parading charge, saying that courts had ruled the Capitol is a “nonpublic forum” in which government is allowed to “limit First Amendment activities so long as the restrictions are ‘reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum and are viewpoint neutral.'”
The D.C. appeals court agreed, ruling against Nassif's lawyers' argument that the parading and picketing statute was “so unclear that it is entirely invalid and cannot be applied to anyone, including him.”
On the other hand, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals labeled the Capitol a public forum.
But Nassif's legal team noticed a discrepancy between the two arguments; is the Capital Rotunda a "nonpublic forum" or a public forum?
What's the difference? If it is a public forum, fewer restrictions can be applied, including restrictions on picketing and parading.
Nassif wants the Supreme Court to decide which of these two terms apply, believing that it could help his case.
The picketing and parading charge is the most common one among January 6 defendants, impacting 460 of the more than 1,450 cases to date.
If the justices throw it out, it will be another big blow to January 6 prosecutors, who thought they could throw the book at defendants in an unprecedented way.
The court has not yet said it would hear the case, and it could be months before a decision is made.
Four out of the nine justices have to agree to hear the case on the merits.
Last month, the court ruled that obstruction charges did not apply to more than 120 defendants and has been improperly used.
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that offered former President Donald Trump some level of immunity for "official acts" committed while president, Trump's lawyers are moving full speed toward helping exonerate their client.
According to Yahoo News, Trump's lawyers are using the ruling in an attempt to reverse the 34 felony charges from the New York "hush money" case.
The Supreme Court ruling was originally related to the classified documents probe, but Trump's lawyers argue that it also applies to the New York case and have filed a motion to have the charges vacated.
His lawyers argue that evidence used by the prosecutors in the New York case is grounds for using the immunity decision to have the charges thrown out.
Trump's legal defense team held nothing back in their attempt to have the charges vacated.
Yahoo News noted:
Justice Juan Merchan this month delayed Trump's sentencing by two months after defence lawyers said the justices' July 1 ruling that presidents cannot face criminal charges over official acts meant prosecutors should not have shown evidence from Trump's time in the White House at trial.
They argued that because of that, the verdict "could not stand."
WarRoom guest host @mattgaetz reads out breaking news that Trump’s lawyers are now seeking to vacate the verdict in the Alvin Bragg case:
“Wouldn’t that be something? If the result of all this TOMFOOLERY in Manhattan is that Trump got the benefit of EXPOSING how partisan,… pic.twitter.com/SEFLA4R1rA
— VISH BURRA 🏴☠️ (@VishBurra) July 12, 2024
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office now has until July 24 to respond to Trump's lawyers' motion to vacate the verdict.
Yahoo News noted:
Legal experts said Trump faces steep odds of getting the hush money conviction overturned, since much of the case involves conduct before his presidency and the evidence from his time in the White House has more to do with private conduct.
So far, Trump's lawyers have scored numerous victories in the way of having trials delayed until after the November election.
Delays allow Trump the opportunity to win the presidency and appoint an AG who will quash the cases, and any others that pop up.
So far, Trump's legal issues have not affected him politically, as his polling numbers remain strong and his fundraising remains steady.
Only time will tell if the New York verdict is thrown out, but if it is, the left will absolutely lose their collective minds. That would be fun to see.