A new poll has bad news for Democrats as they try to brand Donald Trump a "convicted felon" ahead of his rematch with Joe Biden.
The Associated Press poll is a double whammy for Dems: while Americans are against jailing Trump, a majority do approve of Hunter Biden serving time for felony gun crimes.
Joe Biden has relentlessly attacked Trump as a "convicted felon" since he became the first U.S. president to be found guilty of a crime in May.
But Trump has attacked the case as a political sham, and it appears the country sympathizes with his view.
Less than a majority of Americans - only 4 in 10 - have confidence that Trump was treated fairly by the justice system. Just 46% approve of Trump's conviction, while 3 in 10 disapprove and a quarter are neutral.
Meanwhile, 48% of Americans think Trump deserves jail time and 50% think he should not face incarceration. Less than half, 49%, of independents say he should face jail, and 46% say he should not.
“I don’t think the particular crime deserves time,” said Christopher Smith, a 43-year-old independent in Tennessee. “I see what he did, lying on business records because of an affair, as more of a moral crime."
Worse for Dems, Americans are less divided about Hunter Biden's conviction. Democrats have equated Trump's case with Hunter's to argue that they both received impartial justice, but Americans see important differences between the two cases.
While less than a majority of Americans want Trump to face jail, a clear 60% say Hunter Biden deserves time behind bars for lying about his drug abuse on a gun form. The same percentage approves of his conviction.
In short, many Americans seem to think that "convicted felon" is a more suitable description of Joe Biden's son than Trump.
The poll suggests Joe Biden would face backlash if he pardoned his son, who has raised red flags by getting more involved with his father's embattled presidency. Hunter Biden has firmly supported his father against Democrats who want him to step aside following his debate debacle last month.
Meanwhile, Trump's sentencing in the "hush money" case has been delayed until September. Hunter Biden will go on trial again that month, for tax evasion.
If Democrats think they can salvage Biden's crumbling presidency by simply calling Trump a "convicted felon" repeatedly, they're mistaken.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Arpaio, who for years was known as "America's toughest sheriff" for having the inmates in his Maricopa, Arizona, County jails do community betterment projects while behind bars, is suing Joe Biden for falsely characterizing him as a convicted "felon."
The case is being handled by Larry Klayman in the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida.
The false characterization came in an ad that Biden's campaign for the White House created and released to the public.
"I will not stand by and allow my great friend and client, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, to be smeared and defamed by a dishonest president and his Democrat henchmen simply to harm Trump’s presidential election prospects," explained Klayman, who has founded watchdog organizations Judicial Watch and FreedomWatchUSA.
"By equating the two men as 'felons,' the desperate Joe Biden, who not only is alleged to have taken bribes, laundered through his drug addict and true 'convicted felon' Hunter Biden, but who is now seen as essentially braindead with severe cognitive issues, I will not stand idly by to allow this falsehood to be perpetrated on the American public. Joe Biden and his evil clowns at Biden for President, Inc., will be held to legally account and to pay for their defamation of a good and patriotic man, which has contributed to serious threats against him," Klayman said.
Arpaio's reputation during his two decades plus as the Maricopa sheriff was enhanced by his decision to have inmates wear pink underwear after he found they were stealing the clothing when it was white. He also set up what essentially were chain gangs to perform public service projects.
The case explains, "The motive for this publication, which was alleged to be published with actual malice, was to tar Sheriff Arpaio and thus Trump, who Arpaio strongly supports, and thus Trump’s election prospects in Florida, the third largest state and a key one in any presidential contest."
Arpaio was found liable for a misdemeanor, contempt of court, during a years-long case over the county's handling of illegal aliens who were criminals. He then was pardoned by President Trump.
The Barack Obama administration had claimed the department overstepped the bounds set by the courts in pursuit of criminals.
Arpaio had served in the Army, as a police officer in Washington and Las Vegas, and with the Drug Enforcement Administration. He essentially came out of retirement to help Maricopa County in its fight against crime.
But he had been at odds with Obama because of the administration's tolerance for illegal immigration, a move that has reached a point of near-perfection under Joe Biden's open borders agenda.
His novel approach to law enforcement won him many elections. For example, he established chain gangs for inmates to contribute thousands of dollars of free labor to communities, painting over graffiti and cleaning streets.
He banned smoking, coffee, movies, pornographic magazines, and unrestricted TV in jails. His costs per meal for inmates ran between 15 cents and 40 cents. He provided pink underwear for inmates to wear, after learning that inmates were stealing white jailhouse boxers.
Subsequent reports confirmed that Arpaio's successor, a Democrat, also was looking at a possible contempt charge over the same issue involving the enforcement of the law against illegal aliens.
The case began in 2007 with the arrest of Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican immigrant. He later sued the agency and Arpaio, alleging he was racially profiled.
The case, against Biden and Biden for President, seeks millions of dollars in damages.
The complaint charges that last month, the Biden campaign's "Official Rapid Response Page" on Twitter, @BidenHQ, posted a video with the caption "Trump trae al escenario a Joe Arpaio, un criminal convicto que fue perdonado por Trump después de que perfiló racialmente y abusó de inmigrantes."
The complaint notes, "This is translated into the following: Trump brings to the stage Joe Arpaio, a convicted felon who was pardoned by Trump after he racially profiled and abused immigrants."
"In this post, the defamatory caption was accompanied by a video of Donald Trump at a campaign event where he introduced plaintiff Arpaio to the crowd. This defamatory post was posted on the Campaign’s Twitter page, at the direction of the defendants. As of the time of writing, this defamatory post was viewed nearly 26,000 times, including by an individual located in Hillsborough County, Florida. Thus, the intent behind this post was to (1) try to affect the 2024 presidential election, and specifically to try to win Florida, by falsely associating Trump with a 'convicted felon' and (2) to harm plaintiff Arpaio’s reputation."
It points out that the post was "directed at Florida voters as a form of election interference, and in particular at voters in Hillsborough County, which is one of the most important counties in deciding whether Florida’s electoral votes will go to Biden or Trump in the 2024 Presidential election."
But the post is "false, malicious, and defamatory because (1) Plaintiff Arpaio has never been convicted of a felony and (2) Plaintiff Arpaio has never been found to have 'abused immigrants.'"
The counts include defamation, defamation per se, and defamation by implication.
A receptionist at the White House switchboard, 202-456-1414, contacted by WND for a comment from a media officer, first grilled the reporter on what WND meant, and where it was located. Then she instructed that she had no one available to comment.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., long known for his intolerance of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, now has announced a scheme to subvert its recent ruling on presidential immunity.
Schumer says he wants Congress simply to designate actions by President Donald Trump as "unofficial" so he could face whatever charges Democrat prosecutors would want to bring.
The immunity fight was prompted by Democrats' lawfare against Trump, and their multiple civil and criminal legal cases that often are based on the flimsiest of grounds.
The high court's ruling was fundamental. It said that for official acts that are part of his constitutional duties, the president has absolute immunity, for some other acts he has presumed immunity, and for private actions, no immunity.
Not good enough for Schumer, who once took a microphone during an abortion rally outside the Supreme Court and personally threatened several of the justices and recently appeared the fool by posting online images of him grilling hamburgers, and putting a slice of cheese on uncooked meat.
Schumer plans to hold a vote and with that, reverse the court's decision.
Legal expert Jonathan Turley pointed out that the plan is "more politically than legally compelling." And he noted, "The decision is based on constitutional law and simply declaring whole areas 'unofficial' will not negate the ruling."
Schumer, from the Senate floor, attacked the Supreme Court, stating, "They incorrectly declared that former President Trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took while in office. They incorrectly declared that all future presidents are entitled to a breathtaking level of immunity so long as their conduct is ostensibly carried out in their official capacity as president."
He claimed the court effectively "placed a crown on Donald Trump's head."
He said he would declare Trump's "election subversion acts" as unofficial so they would not involve any immunity.
He also said he'd continue to work to put limits on what courts can do.
The U.S. Justice Department has asked several judges for more time to figure out how to proceed on multiple cases involving obstruction charges that the Supreme Court ruled were invalid, including charges against former President Donald Trump.
Many of the judges are based in Washington, D.C., the jurisdiction where the January 6 defendants have been charged. Prosecutors are asking for one to two months of extra time to figure out how they want to proceed on pending charges and existing convictions.
One specific case involves Ronald Sandlin, who is serving a more than five-year sentence for obstruction and assaulting a police officer.
Judge Dabney Friedrich has ordered prosecutors in the case to come up with new recommendations for charges and sentencing in light of Fischer V. United States, which ruled that obstruction must be limited to destroying physical documents that could serve as evidence.
Prosecutors asked for 30 extra days to figure out their game plan.
“The government is actively assessing the impacts of Fischer on Jan. 6 cases in a variety of procedural postures,” they said.
They admitted that the obstruction charge may not be appropriate under the narrower Supreme Court ruling.
“The government will also analyze whether it would still be able to meet its burden under the narrower interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) articulated in Fischer, and whether Fischer alters the government’s position on the defendant’s sentence,” prosecutors wrote.
Not all judges are willing to deal with the delays the DOJ is asking for, however.
In another case against Tara Stottlemeyer, prosecutors asked for 60 days to figure out whether to vacate her conviction on obstruction.
She has already served her jail sentence for breaking into several offices and rifling through papers but is still on probation.
Prosecutors noted that the obstruction charges were not wholly negated and that the DOJ needs time “so that this process may take place efficiently and thoughtfully.”
In that case, Judge Timothy Kelly denied the DOJ's request to have until September and told them to get their case together by July 30.
Judge Tanya Chutkan will also have to rule on whether or not the charges against former President Donald Trump can go forward, if DOJ prosecutors still try to make them stick.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden is responsible for the weaponization of the federal government, and Americans must make sure it never happens against.
That's the message in a new video from the House Judiciary GOP, which has released a posting in which Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, explains the proof.
Nehls explains first and foremost, Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, appointed the so-called "non-partisan" Jack Smith to pursue Trump.
But he explains Smith is anything but non-partisan, having tried to destroy Gov. Robert McDonald only to lose 8-0 at the Supreme Court.
Smith, too, has made a career of targeting conservatives, and his wife was a producer for leftist Michelle Obama's "documentary."
In a state prosecution of Trump in Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis sent her "former lover" and lead Trump attacker Nathan Wade to meet with Biden's "inner circle" as soon as Trump announced his candidacy.
There's more, Nehls explained, with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg campaigning on the promise to get Trump and then having Biden's No. 3 operative at the DOJ move to his local office to charge Trump with misdemeanors that had expired.
The judge in that case actually refused to excuse himself even though his daughter was fundraising off her father's political courtroom decisions at the time the case was going on.
Biden even admitted the agenda, demanding that people make sure Trump "does not become the next president."
Nehls said actually it's time to make sure such weaponization never happens again.
In a decisive ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon denied a request to dismiss charges against Walt Nauta, a close associate of former President Donald Trump, the Associated Press reported.
Aileen Cannon's decision came amidst allegations of hidden classified documents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.
On a recent Saturday, the legal landscape surrounding former President Donald Trump thickened as Judge Aileen Cannon issued a four-page order. In it, she dismissed the motion for dismissal put forth by Walt Nauta, Trump’s personal valet, on the grounds of alleged insufficient cooperation from the prosecution and claimed bias against Nauta’s legal representation.
The charges against Nauta include a conspiracy to conceal classified documents alongside Trump and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira. These allegations relate to actions taken after Trump's presidency, with the classified documents reportedly moved to his Palm Beach property.
Both Nauta and De Oliveira, alongside Trump, have maintained their innocence, pleading not guilty to the charges laid against them. Despite these pleas, no trial date has been set, leaving the legal proceedings in a state of uncertainty.
Judge Cannon’s refusal to dismiss the charges reflects the ongoing tension and high stakes of the case. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team, handling the prosecution, rejected claims of non-cooperation and bias purported by Nauta’s defense.
In her ruling, Judge Cannon emphasized that the defense’s arguments did not fulfill the stringent criteria necessary to warrant a dismissal at this stage of the proceedings. This decision indicates a readiness to allow the case to proceed to trial.
Regarding Trump's similar motion to dismiss the charges against him, Judge Cannon has yet to comment on its merits. Her recent order distinctly avoided delving into the details of Trump's defense, stating, "This Order shall not be construed as commenting on the merits of Defendant Trump’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Selective and Vindictive Prosecution or on any other motion pending before the Court."
This ongoing saga at Mar-a-Lago has captured national attention, spotlighting the complexities of legal battles involving former presidents and their associates. The allegations of mishandling classified documents have sparked debates on national security and the responsibilities of public officials after leaving office.
As the case unfolds, the roles of Nauta and De Oliveira will be scrutinized further, possibly shedding more light on the inner workings of Trump’s post-presidential period. The implications for all involved are significant, potentially setting precedents for how similar cases are handled in the future.
The legal proceedings continue to develop, with each court appearance and ruling bringing new details to the forefront of this high-profile case.
The refusal to dismiss the charges could lead to a protracted legal battle, one that might illuminate the extent of the alleged conspiracy to hide classified documents. As the judicial process marches on, the American public and legal experts alike watch closely.
The intricacies of the case involve not just legal arguments but also the broader implications concerning the handling of classified information and the enforcement of national security protocols.
As the case gears up for more hearings, all eyes will be on how the defense and the prosecution present their cases, and how Judge Cannon navigates the legal challenges presented.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The now-failed Chevron precedent, struck down just days ago by the U.S. Supreme Court, had come up with some unusual government mandates.
One was an order for a South Dakota farmer not to farm part of his ground because melting snow made it wet.
Another was that a truck repair shop was a … mine.
Those two cases now are heading back to court – for a decision that disallows the sometimes odd opinions of bureaucrats working for federal agencies.
It was the Pacific Legal Foundation that confirmed already two of its cases, Foster v. U.S. Department of Agriculture and KC Transport v. Secretary of Labor, have been ordered back to court.
"Our clients may now make their case in court without judges putting their thumb on the scale in favor of the government," said Paige Gilliard, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “The Supreme Court’s decision to end Chevron deference is a move to restore fairness in federal courts. Our clients Arlen Foster and KC Transport are among the first beneficiaries."
The 1980s-era Chevron claimed that courts should submit to the opinions of bureaucrats should a federal law have a vague area. In that case, the bureaucrats' interpretation was to be held as law.
No longer.
The foundation said Arlen Foster, a third-generation Miner County, S.D., farmer, works with his family to raise cattle, corn, soybeans, and hay on land his grandfather bought in 1900 with a $1,000 loan.
It was Arlen's father who planted a tree belt along the edge of the farm in 1936 to prevent erosion.
Today the trees are tall and collect deep snow drifts in the winter.
"As long as the feds consider the puddle a wetland, Arlen cannot farm it. Doing so would violate the 'Swampbuster' provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act that tie wetlands to federal assistance programs provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture," the team said.
At dispute was a provision allowing for a review of the designation. Foster asked for a review but the feds refused, demanding "new evidence" first, even though that is not a requirement of the actual law.
The second case involves KC Transport, a family-owned, independent trucking company serving a wide array of customers from its five locations in southern West Virginia and Virginia.
The trucks are used for coal, earth, gravel, and more.
The foundation explained, "Trouble began for KC Transport in 2019 when a federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspector showed up at the company’s Emmett, W.V., facility. The arrival of a federal regulator who inspects mines under the Federal Mine Act was unexpected and unusual. The MSHA, which operates under the U.S. Department of Labor, had never before inspected the Emmett facility—for good reason. The Emmett facility parks maintains, and repairs trucks that are occasionally hired to haul coal. Its property is neither on a mine nor attached to one; the closest mines are several miles away."
That, however, was not an obstacle to the mine inspector deciding that the company should be fined nearly $10,000.
The company challenged the citations, explaining it was not a mine, but an administrative law judge said it was.
Eventually, the federal government said the trucks are subject to "mine" regulations, for being parked at a repair shop.
The ultimate decision in the case, now back for more review, was that the Labor secretary should decide the department's authority.
The left's lawfare against former President Donald Trump continues to hit roadblocks at every turn, and Jack Smith's team just suffered yet another setback with potentially significant implications.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Saturday granted a temporary delay in the classified documents case brought by Smith against Trump so that she could assess the matter in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on presidential immunity, as the Washington Examiner reports.
As the New York Post reported, it was on Friday that Trump's legal team made its request for a halt in the classified documents proceedings in light of the high court's recent decision.
According to Trump's attorneys, the Supreme Court's ruling “guts” prosecutorial claims that their client enjoyed no immunity regarding claims that he mishandled sensitive national security documents.
Trump lawyers Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, and Christopher Kise contended that Smith is now unable to make use of evidence stemming from “official acts,” which they argue was a key tactic of the prosecution in the case at issue.
Adding further meat to their request, the lawyers for Trump referenced a concurrence penned by Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting that Smith's appointment to his current role by Attorney General Merrick Garland may well be unconstitutional and therefore, invalid.
Specifically, the former president's legal team requested that Cannon issue a partial stay in the case and to take steps to resolve “threshold questions” about the SCOTUS ruling and how it impacts the documents matter.
They added that a briefing schedule related to the immunity ruling would need to stretch into September, making it increasingly unlikely that a trial would occur any time prior to the November election.
Unsurprisingly, Smith's team reacted by opposing the request for a stay and by asking for an opportunity to submit a formal response.
As the Washington Examiner later reported, it was on Saturday that Cannon went ahead and granted the request for a delay in the matter, pending review of the Supreme Court's decision and its potential implications for the case.
Cannon implemented a two-week halt on a trio of upcoming deadlines facing the parties, a decision that was surely welcomed by the president and his team.
The judge declared a July 18 deadline for Smith to respond to Trump's motion for a stay and a July 21 deadline for all other replies.
Cannon's move was as partial win for Trump, in that he wanted a full pause on the case with the exception of the ongoing dispute over a gag order in the case, but only received a halt on certain aspects of the proceedings.
Even so, any delays can rightly be viewed as detrimental to what has long seemed to be Smith's overarching goal, namely, to secure convictions on as many counts against Trump as possible ahead of Nov. 5.
President Joe Biden and his administration were defeated by a group of Republican attorneys general last week regarding a law that would force health care providers to "accept radical gender ideology."
According to The Daily Wire, a Mississippi-based federal judge intervened and blocked a proposed rule that the Republican AGs said could radically change the healthcare landscape for the worse.
The ruling came down from U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr.
He ruled that President Biden's HHS "expanded its statutory authority when it proposed a rule to expand prohibitions against sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity."
At issue, according to Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti who led the charge against the rule, was that the rule would force states to foot the bill for transgender surgeries for minors.
Skrmetti released a statement in the wake of the federal judge's ruling.
"Today a federal court said no to the Biden administration’s attempt to illegally force every health care provider in America to adopt the most extreme version of gender ideology," Skrmetti said. "The administration has over and over again issued regulations that mangle the law to advance an ideological agenda."
The Tennessee AG celebrated the ruling, noting that it would at least "pause" the Biden admins' rule and provide extra time to rally and ultimately defeat it with a coalition of other Republican-led states.
"This case is just one of many examples of Tennessee working with other states to block the unlawful abuse of regulatory power," Skrmetti added.
"Today’s order puts the rule on pause while we keep fighting to ensure this illegal rule never goes into effect."
The Daily Wire noted:
In his decision, Guirola wrote that he was blocking the rule "so far as this final rule is intended to extend discrimination on the basis of sex to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity."
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and that they will suffer irreparable harm in the form of either compliance costs or lost federal funding," the judge wrote.
He added, "The substantial cost of compliance with the 181-page rule weighs in favor of maintaining the status quo. Therefore, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are entitled to a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing HHS’s May 2024 Rule."
Hopefully, more states will join the fight and continue to work to protect American children from such atrocities.
Sadly for law-abiding gun owners in Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court will not be stepping in regarding a challenge to an insane new law that bans certain types of firearms in the state.
According to NBC News, last week, the high court declined to take up a case challenging the law, which came as a major disappointment given the conservative majority makeup of the current Supreme Court bench.
The high court's decision to not take up the challenge means that the law will remain in effect.
However, litigation concerning the law continues to play out in the lower courts and many court observers believe it will eventually wind its way back to the Supreme Court before it's all said and done.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion on the high court's decision to not hear the case.
He wants more specifics on what types of firearms can be restricted by the state, saying an appeals court decision to uphold the Illinois ban "illustrates why this court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers."
NBC News noted:
The announcement, coming soon after the court declined to hear a similar case from Maryland, suggests the court is not eager to weigh in on what has become a recurring issue: whether such bans violate the Second Amendment, which the court expanded in a 2022 gun rights ruling.
The Illinois weapons ban is a typical liberal, anti-gun "assault weapons ban." It bans popular sporting firearms like the AR-15. It also bans "large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition for long guns or more than 15 rounds of ammunition for handguns."
It was noted that the law doesn't affect people who already owned such firearms and accessories before the law took effect, and it also doesn't ban handguns.
Justifiably, many gun and Second Amendment advocacy groups sued after the law went into effect, arguing that it's a clear violation of residents' Second Amendment rights.
The high court also declined to hear a high-profile, similar case out of Maryland that also bans "assault weapons."
NBC News noted:
In May of last year, the Supreme Court declined to block the new restrictions. It also declined to block similar restrictions enacted in New York, suggesting no great eagerness among the justices to jump in on the issue.
The law continues to be challenged in multiple lower courts in the state of Illinois and other states where similar laws were enacted.
Hopefully, they all end up back at the high court sooner than later, where the U.S. Constitution will prevail.