This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

JERUSALEM – The new year is barely one week old and there have already been several events whose potential political fallout is immense. However, Justin Trudeau's plummet from grace has nothing on one of the unlikelier headlines to emerge in the last 24 hours, namely British-American influencer Andrew Tate's apparent intention to run for prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Tate took to X to launch the BRUV party – Britain Restoring Underlying Values – which he claimed was aimed at restoring the "once Great Britain." He made another radical claim; namely that if change had not been effectuated within 45 days, he would step down.

"No delays," he wrote on X. "Bruv" is also a slang term, like "bro," in the U.S. and is most commonly heard in the south of the country, particularly certain areas of London.

"This is a war to reclaim Britain," the home page for the charter states. "No excuses, no compromises, no second chances. We will defend our borders, crush crime, purge corruption, and restore pride to a nation under siege."

"Britain will rise again – stronger, unyielding, unapologetic," it added. "If you want safety, power, and freedom, join the fight. The time for talk is over. It's action or nothing."

There were immediate teething troubles for the @votebruv handle on X, as the account was suspended within hours of its launch. Tate wrote personally to X CEO Elon Musk to say they had broken no rules. Some three hours later, Musk personally responded to Tate to say the handle was back up, saying he was not sure why it was suspended.

One of the BRUV party's charter's main ambitions is to center its primary alliance with the United States, "Not E.U., not U.N., not NATO and not WHO," according to Tate.

Also in the charter was a commitment to harsher migration policies and a reduction in knife crime, which is particularly prevalent in large swaths of the capital, London, through stricter punishment and and deterrence strategies, such as through live telecasting solitary confinement of knife-crime offenders.

Tate also called for reform of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which he labeled a "rotten institution," while accusing them of "sexual abuse scandals," "allegations of child exploitation," and "reports of pornographic content."

This particular comment seems like an exhibit of Chutzpah 101, as Tate – who self-identifies as a misogynist, who has been recorded as saying women should "bear responsibility" for sexual assault, has been credibly accused, along with his brother and confidant, Tristan, of trafficking at least one underaged girl, as well as sexual misconduct.

The most recent British election was in 2024, and officially, if the government maintains its enormous working majority of more than 300 seats, there need not be another one until 2029. While there is currently enormous pressure on Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, especially over his personal handling of the Muslim rape gangs issue, and his and his party's deep unpopularity, things will remain as they are for the foreseeable future.

Tate's alleged bid is a curious one. The U.K. system is nothing like the U.S., where a complete outsider such as Donald Trump, could descend the golden escalator in 2015 and announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination, and eventually win.

Over the years there has been the odd member of Parliament who won a seat having stood as a protest candidate against an unpopular incumbent, but there is no comparison as to what would be required for a brand new party to sweep to power. Look at Nigel Farage. He started his political career largely in protest at Britain's continued presence in the European Union. It was only after he had already become a Member of the European Parliament and stood in numerous U.K. general elections that he finally won his own parliamentary seat in the 2024 election.

While it is true things move much more quickly these days and the reach someone like Tate would have among disaffected voters – particularly young working-class men – is significant, it seems difficult to believe he could ever have enough support to sweep to the top job, especially in a country in which he would likely be immediately arrested if he returned.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

It was only weeks ago that a congressional report confirmed that the censorship schemes assembled and implemented by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, working with social media platforms, were "blatantly unconstitutional."

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, already had admitted in a letter to Congress that he was censoring Americans on the orders of Biden.

In fact, he charged, "Senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor COVID-19 content, including humor & satire. … I believe the government pressure was wrong & I regret we were not more outspoken about it."

Now Facebook is putting action behind Zuckerberg's words, a video from Zuckerberg in which he promises to return to a constitutional standard.

"We're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms. More specifically, we're going to get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with Community Notes similar to X, starting in the U.S," Zuckerberg announced.

Fox News reported the chief global affairs officer for Meta, Facebook's parent company, Joel Kaplan, joined its "Fox & Friends" broadcast.

He said, "This is a great opportunity for us to reset the balance in favor of free expression. As Mark says in that video, what we're doing is we're getting back to our roots and free expression."

Zuckerberg's "fact-checking," which often amounted to nothing more than a censorship of any opinion – or even fact – that disagreed with the agenda of American Democrats and other leftists on topics like COVID, elections and more, was installed in 2016 after the election and purportedly was to "manage" misinformation.

Executives said it was because of leftist political pressure to address what Democrats called misinformation, disinformation and malinformation, which even they admitted was true, but used in a way they didn't like.

"We went to independent, third-party fact-checkers," Kaplan told Fox News Digital. "It has become clear there is too much political bias in what they choose to fact-check because, basically, they get to fact-check whatever they see on the platform."

The censorship, he confirmed, is being ended "completely," and in its place with be a "community notes" plan similar to what Elon Musk installed on Twitter, now X, when he took it over.

"Instead of going to some so-called expert, it instead relies on the community and the people on the platform to provide their own commentary to something that they've read," Kaplan said. "We think that's a much better approach rather than relying on so-called experts who bring their own biases into the program."

President-elect Donald Trump has had repeated run-ins with social media companies' censorship his comments and opinions, and he's even been removed from some, following their adherence to the Biden censorship agenda. In response he created Truth Social.

But as he's taking over the White House in just days the political winds have shifted.

"We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression," Kaplan said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

PALM BEACH, Florida – President-elect Donald Trump shared a video on Truth Social Monday evening of a man from Greenland urging the U.S. to purchase the massive territory from Denmark.

"Buy us! Buy Greenland!" the man says as he puts on a red, Make America Great Again cap.

Trump attached his own message to the video clip, indicating: "I am hearing that the people of Greenland are 'MAGA.'

"My son, Don Jr, and various representatives, will be traveling there to visit some of the most magnificent areas and sights.

"Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation.

"We will protect it, and cherish it, from a very vicious outside World. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!"

When asked why Trump should buy Greenland, the man responded: "Because we don't want to be colonized by Danish government anymore."

"We get ripped [off] every year about our minerals from Greenland. We are the richest nation in the world, and we don't get to use it."

He also noted, "I love America."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

JERUSALEM – A recently published report from an Israeli think tank again highlights some of the intelligence failures, which led to the scale of the Hamas onslaughts against southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, being far worse than it ought to have been, given the information about the planned attack was publicly available, if the resources had been directed to analyze and read it.

Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, or JCFA, revealed a series of alarming posts that appeared on a Hamas-affiliated Telegram channel the night before the Oct. 7 massacre. His analysis suggests that different preparedness measures might have been possible had this intelligence been monitored and analyzed in real time, according to Israel Hayom.

"On October 6, 2023, the Al-Quds Brigades, the military arm of the Islamic Jihad, held a military parade to mark the anniversary of the establishment of the organization. Fighters from military arms of other organizations also participated in the march, including the Al-Qassam Brigades. The military parade continued until 6:20 in the evening," Halevi wrote on X.

Halevi went on to explain that the Gaza Interior Ministry, which is responsible for all the security mechanisms, mobilized all security forces including the "national security, the engineering, the traffic police, the civil defense, the special police force and the special police unit "Sahm" (سهم) to secure Islamic Jihad's military parade, which Hamas apparently used to organize the forces in preparation for the Oct. 7 attack," which commenced approximately 12 hours afterward.

At the center of Dahoah-Halevi's analysis is the figure of Maam Rashid al-Masri, also known as "Abu Hafs." Al-Masri, a Hamas Nukhba terrorist, managed the Telegram channel named "Military Tactics" and co-founded the "Al-Qassam Brigades Dispatch" channel.

And this was not all. According to Halevi, the infiltration of some 6,000 Hamas fighters was preceded by explicit Telegram warnings, which contained more than simply overt threats against Israel. Rather, it was a "repository of detailed military instruction materials encompassing combat methodology, concealment techniques, and explosives handling," reported the outlet.

The researcher's findings also show there were warning signs about Hamas' actual intentions in September 2023, which discussed plans to attack the communities abutting the border fence. In fact, a direct threat emanated on Sept. 18, calling on them to "flee and leave before it is too late."

"We will turn your skulls into a bridge over which we will cross to Jerusalem and al-Aqsa [mosque]," it added. "You are deluding yourselves about your weak army and crumbling government. Nothing will help you except escape. Woe to you from our coming hours [our actions in the near future] which will bring you what no eye has seen and no ear has heard. The revolutionary youth, Gaza Strip."

Several more posts of escalating threat were posted throughout September, with one suggesting that by Sept. 21, the die was already cast, the decision had been made and the Gaza border area would be made "uninhabitable."

Halevi's research only goes up to the end of September, although no doubt there will be further work done on the messages missed and the eye-witness testimony ignored up to and including Oct. 7, when army spotters saw the scale of the Hamas attack, sending urgent messages up the chain of command.

It seems fanciful there will not be a full public inquiry into the war and the glaring intelligence failures, which immediately preceded it, despite the best efforts of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fighting tooth and nail to prevent the establishment of one, while there is still fighting in Gaza, and there is a precarious ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

JERUSALEM – Elon Musk is using the time he has before officially starting his role as co-head of the Department of Governmental Efficiency in the U.S. to maintain the pressure on Labor leaders – both past and present – in the United Kingdom over the national disgrace of the largely Pakistani Muslim rape gangs, which targeted thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands – of white working-class girls and young women.

Musk has called for the United Kingdom’s current Prime Minister and Leader of the Labor Party Sir Keir Starmer, who was a former director of Public Prosecutions from 2008-2013, to be jailed for his role what the Tesla CEO clearly views – along with millions of others – as one of the most shameful events in recent British history.

However, he was not done there, and took aim at Britain’s former Prime Minister and Chancellor of The Exchequer under Tony Blair’s government, Gordon Brown. When Blair resigned as PM in 2007, it was under Brown’s leadership that Starmer was the most senior lawyer in the country.

On Monday, Starmer responded to Musk’s posts on X, denouncing them as “poison for the far right.” He accused people such as Musk and those supporting Tommy Robinson of spreading “lies and misinformation” as far and as wide as possible, alleging they were “not interested in the victims,” but rather being out for themselves. He added they were “not interested in justice… these are people who are trying to get some vicarious thrill from street violence, which people like Tommy Robinson promote.”

 

Earlier, Musk retweeted an X post from account called “Basil the Great,” which showed a picture of a younger Brown with a direct quote from a Home Office memo circulated at the time the then-prime minister was in power. Above it he wrote but one word, “Disgrace.”

“We believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behavior and therefore it is not for your police officers to get involved.” This was backed up with the reemergence of a video of ex-police officer Dion Miller, explaining exactly this in a short clip. In yet another X post, Musk accused Brown of committing “an unforgivable crime against the British people.”

 

Last week, Musk criticized Starmer for the first time over his handling of the issue, including expressing his dismay at the Labor government’s refusal to acquiesce to the establishment of a public inquiry. This message was actually delivered by Labor’s safeguarding minister (whatever that is supposed to be) Jess Phillips, with Musk accusing Starmer of being “complicit in the rape of Britain.”

Nigel Farage, the Reform U.K. party MP for Clacton, who was involved in his own spat with Musk despite defending the billionaire, over the former’s remark he should be replaced as his faction’s leader, claimed Starmer had ignored a whistleblower, who had tried to present him with clear evidence of the scale of the problem. Farage pledged a national inquiry to investigate these horrific crimes if his party was to win the next general election.

One of the people who has managed to bring this issue to the fore after years of trying is Maggie Oliver, another former police officer – a detective – who resigned from Greater Manchester Police in 2012. She also pointed the finger at the prime minister, adding both the Conservatives and Labor were to blame.

 

Whether Musk should embroil himself in U.K. national politics is somewhat of a moot point. He has an enormous platform and is helping to shine a bright light – the heat of which clearly makes the British Prime Minister incredibly uncomfortable – on an issue, which both sides of the aisle have made toxic, a political third-rail, only touched at one’s own peril.

However, Starmer’s rejoinder that Musk is pandering to the far-right is to use a British idiom, “weak tea.” In some ways, the fact this issue has been hushed up by both Labor and the Conservatives for decades, gives the lie to this particular line of argument.

For a premier seemingly in as much political difficulty as Starmer is, it would likely serve him better to come up with a more muscular defense of why there should not be a public inquiry, rather than hurling epithets at the world’s richest man.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A joint session of Congress on Monday adopted the Electoral College landslide victory of President-elect Donald Trump, who is to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, and the pro forma vote recitation lacked any of the conspiratorial theories that Democrats had launched to threaten the action.

The vote was 312 for Trump, to 226 for Kamala Harris, and there wasn't even a whisper of protest from Democrats, who routinely have objected in past years to GOP vote counts.

Even more significant, however, was the complete silence from multiple Democrats who have complained, publicly, that it was up to Congress to stop Trump from being president, as Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Calif., had insisted.

The quick and routine vote adoption was in contrast to the chaos from four years earlier, when some 1,500 people, doubting the integrity of the 2020 vote count, disrupted Congress, forcing the final vote for Joe Biden to be delayed until the late night hours.

Since then, hundreds were charged or jailed, some for counts as serious as trespassing. Trump has promised to pardon "many" of those when he takes office. And critics of the Democrat lawfare agenda against Trump over the past four years have called for investigations of, and criminal charges against, those who led that lawfare.

Significant was the fact that public calls for extremism on the part of Democrats fell flat.

It was the Washington Stand that explained in a column that one scheme was proposed by lawyers Evan Davis and David Schulte, who wanted Democrats to "take a stand" against Trump.

They based their demands on their assumption of Trump's "guilt" of "insurrection."

The commentary explained their plan was based on "their ahistorical claims and flakey reading of the 14th Amendment's Section 3."

"They contend that Trump needs a two-thirds vote of Congress to overcome his 'disability' regardless of receiving 312 electoral votes to 226 electoral votes for Kamala Harris and 77,270,000 popular votes to 74,984,000 for Harris! Sorry counselors. As Jimmy Stewart said in 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' 'Forget it, fellas … [that] … is a lot of hooey,'" the column said.

"Democrats decided on the 14th Amendment Trump disqualification fantasy ploy after losing six state and federal court efforts with the misreporting 'talents' of the leftist disinformation media to kick Trump off 2024 election ballots or to prevent him from getting on," it continued, "Davis and Schulte cite the Trump impeachment trial for 'incitement of insurrection' in which the attorneys bizarrely claim that the senators did 'provide a majority for conviction but failed to reach the two-thirds vote required for removal from office.' Huh?"

It added, "What is a Senate 'vote of a majority' for conviction? The official U.S. Senate record has a different view on the case outcome found at Congress.gov which reports that: 'The Senate adjudges that Donald John Trump, former President of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the Article of Impeachment by Yea-Nay Vote. 57-43. Record Vote Number: 59.' For the benefit of these elite law school attorneys, when the U.S. Senate says Trump is not guilty it means he is cleared of the charges, i.e., Trump is not guilty."

But that wasn't the only ideology that was created against Trump.

"The second insurrection clause effort these hope-beyond-hope attorneys cling to in order to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidency occurred in a state challenge to the placement of Trump's name on the Colorado ballot for president where the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled against Trump even being allowed to have his name on the presidential ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson (No. 23–719, 3/4/2024) unanimously 'reversed the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court that had held Trump to be ineligible for the office of president under Section 3 on the grounds that he had engaged in insurrection and, therefore, could not be listed on the Colorado presidential primary ballot.'"

The Stand explained the two lawyers "want newly-elected Democratic members of Congress" to convert the joint session of Congress "into an ad hoc legal circus hard to distinguish from sedition to disqualify a sufficient number of state electoral votes because of their tortured misunderstanding of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment so that by default, Kamala Harris would be the president!"

They had wanted that to happen through Democrat petitions to "challenge" votes from GOP states.

The commentary explained there were other problems with the scheme, including also that educated readings of the 14th Amendment mean that the president and vice president are excluded from coverage.

Raskin's comment:

And one from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:

.

A survey even purported to show many Americans had adopted the ideology:

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden, who describes himself as a devout Catholic, cursed at reporters for asking about his age during an event over the weekend.

"My being the oldest president, I know more world leaders than any one of you ever met in your whole g*****n life," Biden snapped.

(Editor's warning: Please be aware of Biden's offensive profanity below:)

 Commentator Todd Starnes commented that Biden was cursing after being asked about his age, during a White House event regarding Social Security.

"Biden is supposedly a devout Catholic. What sort of a devout Catholic would intentionally use God's name in vain? Or for that matter, what sort of devout Catholic would support late-term abortions or allow his Justice Dept. to recruit priests to spy on their parishioners?" Starnes pointed out.

"Of course, this is the same devout Catholic who repeatedly referred to the 'palmists' who wrote the Old Testament book of 'Palms.' In the Baptist faith tradition, we call that particular part of the Bible, the 'Psalms,'" he said.

Further, "Just last week the oldest-serving American president called on President Trump to embrace decency in the Oval Office. And a few days later he's using God's name in vain."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden moved on Monday to take "revenge" on the American population, impacting the economy, national security and energy with an abrupt ban on offshore drilling.

"This is a disgraceful decision designed to exact political revenge on the American people who gave President Trump a mandate to increase drilling and lower gas prices," explained Karoline Leavitt, the incoming White House press secretary.

In fact, during Biden's tenure in the White House, his extremist climate change ideology has included repeated attacks on significant sources of energy for America, and he pushed prices for home utilities higher, and triggered a price explosion for gasoline for vehicles into the range of $6 and $7 a gallon at some points.

RedState reported Biden cited the federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to impose bans on drilling along both East and West coasts of the nation, the eastern Gulf of Mexica and parts of Alaska's Northern Bering Sea.

Biden claimed the drilling was "not worth the risks."

Again relying on his belief in a "climate crisis," he said since that "continues to threaten communities across the country and we are transitioning to a clean energy economy, now is the time to protect these coasts for our children and grandchildren."

His often-cited global warming beliefs insist that America stop using fossil fuels, despite the fact any changes, even dramatic alterations, in America's use of those fuels will have little impact on worldwide conditions.

Leavitt further predicted Biden's actions will mean little.

"Rest assured, Joe Biden will fail, and we will drill, baby, drill," she said.

Trump, who made America energy independent during his first term, has promised that during his second term he is making energy independence again a cornerstone of his agenda.

"As president, I will set a national goal of ensuring that America has the No. 1 lowest cost of energy of any industrial country anywhere on Earth," he explained in a video. "We will not only match China, we will be cheaper than China by a lot. And more energy will mean lower inflation that will mean more jobs."

He blasted Biden's "anti-American electricity regulations" and said the U.S. must keep pace with the world economy, which depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy.

Leavitt said Trump is expected to issue executive orders as soon as he takes office on the topic.

"He will use the power of his pen to deliver on many of the promises he made to the American people on the campaign trail to secure our southern border, to fast-track permits for fracking, for drilling, and to also take executive action to stop some of the transgender insanity that we have seen take over this country," she said.

The report said, "A recent survey by CNBC shows a majority of the American people are 'comfortable and prepared to support' Trump's agenda, including those who back drilling for more oil on federal lands and cutting taxes and regulations for business."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Democrats' years-long lawfare campaign against President-elect Donald Trump included a long list of cases, mostly felonies, in a long list of jurisdictions, over a long list of issues.

In the end it all will result in a "talking point … while it lasts."

That's according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who has expressed his opinion that they likely never should have been launched.

The cases include fights over papers, fights over comments, fights over opinions and the like.

One that "remains," at least on paper, is the "hush money" claims created by anti-Trump Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who took business recording misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired. He claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of other crimes that weren't specified, or even identified. The legacy media labeled it the "hush money" case because some of the payments involved distributions to Trump's lawyer, who paid a woman for silence about an affair that both "participants" deny happened.

"The 2024 election proved to be the largest verdict in history after years of lawfare and biased media reporting came to nothing. Merchan showed little self-awareness in claiming that he was only trying to avoid 'immeasurable damage to the citizenry's confidence in the Rule of Law' in continuing the case. Polls show the public saw these cases as lawfare and Merchan is widely viewed as causing precisely that 'immeasurable damage' with his handling of the case. Given this record, it may be fitting that the trophy from the New York case is a media talking point, while it lasts," he noted.

Multiple other lawfare cases against Trump already have been dismissed.

It is Juan Merchan, a judge in New York City, who facilitated Bragg's campaign against Trump.

He's delayed sentencing for months, a fact that has meant that Trump has not been allowed to appeal, so far. Now Merchan has said he will announce a punishment for Trump this week. He also suggested he doesn't plan to impose jail time.

Turley pointed out Trump detractors have "longed for" an "orange-jump-suit moment."

"They will likely be disappointed. As some of us noted after the verdict, this type of case would often result in an unconditional discharge or a sentence without jail time. That prediction became more likely after Trump was reelected in November. Limits on Trump's freedom or liberty would likely result in a fast reversal, and Merchan knew it," Turley explained.

He said one option was to "suspend" action on the case while Trump serves his second term as president, a scheme in which "Merchan would hold a leash on the president as a criminal defendant awaiting punishment."

But, Turley noted, "the whole point of a trophy-kill case is the trophy itself. Merchan will not disappoint. While indicating that he is inclined to a sentence without jail or probation, he will finalize the conviction of Trump just 10 days before his inauguration. In so doing, he will formally label the president-elect a convicted felon."

That, he said, will result in "punishment by soundbite."

In fact, Turley suggested, "Merchan seems at points to be writing the actual talking points for the talking heads. In his order, he states grandly that the jurors found that this 'was the premediated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world.'"

He explained the lawfare failure was clear, and even Joe Biden was disappointed that, "Attorney General Merrick Garland as insufficiently aggressive in pursuing Trump."

Turley explained the failings of the lawfare in the case that should be addressed at by higher courts: "Those appellate issues include charges based on a novel criminal theory through which New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg not only zapped a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but based a state charge on federal election law and federal taxation violations. So, after the Justice Department declined to prosecute federal violations, Bragg effectively did so in state court with Merchan's blessing. The issues also include Merchan's absurd instructions to the jury. The novel theory demanded a secondary offense, the crime that Trump was seeking to conceal by listing payments as legal expenses. Merchan allowed the jury to find that the secondary offense was any of an array of vaguely defined options. Even on the jury form, they did not have to specify which crimes were found. Merchan did not require even a majority, let alone a unanimous jury, to agree on what actually occurred. Under Merchan's instruction, the jury could have split four-four-four on whether this was all done to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. Neither Trump nor the public will ever know."

Even one Democrat senator called the case total "b——."

Trump's response to Merchan was unvarnished:

He said Merchan's case was nothing but a "rigged charade."

The Article III Project, which advocates for the judiciary, similarly responded, revealing some of the conflicts that face Merchan's plans.

"Democrat Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan—who donated to Trump's opponents and whose adult daughter Loren is raising money off of this bogus case—once again proves he is partisan, corrupt, and dangerous. The Supreme Court must end this immediately," said Mike Davis, who helped win Senate confirmation battles for Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

ABC reported the case sentence will include an "unconditional discharge."

In fact, Trump's lawyers already have asked that the sentencing be put off while they appeal. They have asked a state appeals court to reverse Merchan's agenda to keep the case going with the sentencing.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Congress on Monday, meeting in a joint session of the House and Senate, voted to adopt the Electoral College victory of President-elect Donald Trump for president beginning with the new term starting Jan. 20.

The pro forma comments and recitation of the votes were in contrast to the events of four years earlier when there was considerable suspicion about election manipulation, and protesters invaded the Capitol building, causing the final vote for Joe Biden to be delayed until the late night hours.

Since then, the undue influences of Mark Zuckerberg, who handed out $400 million plus used by local election officials often to recruit voters in Democrat districts, and the FBI's decision to interfere by falsely labeling information about Biden family scandals documented in a computer abandoned by Hunter Biden, have been documented.

The routine recitations on Monday included that the certificates from the states appeared to be regular and properly authentic. Trump had 312 votes to Kamala Harris' 226.

The adoption process actually took only minutes.

The events were anticlimactic as there were no protests, disputes or challenges, as some Democrats had suggested would happen, during the process.

Patriot News Alerts delivers timely news and analysis on U.S. politics, government, and current events, helping readers stay informed with clear reporting and principled commentary.
© 2026 - Patriot News Alerts