This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a stunning development in President Donald Trump's war on illegal and dangerous drugs that are being pushed into America, the aide to a Democrat governor has been arrested on suspicion of cocaine trafficking.
The aide to Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat in Massachusetts, was fired immediately.
A report from Fox News said it was LaMar Cook, 45, of Springfield, who pleaded not guilty at his arraignment and was ordered held without bond.
The report noted investigators intercepted packages with the drug "slated to be delivered to a state office building where he worked," the report confirmed.
Cook, before his arrest and dismissal, was deputy director of Healey's Western Massachusetts office, the report said.
An official in the governor's office, confirming the immediate firing, said, "The conduct that occurred here is unacceptable and represents a major breach of the public trust. This criminal investigation is ongoing, and our administration will work with law enforcement to assist them in their work."
Local prosecutors confirmed that 21 kilograms of cocaine had been seized, including eight during the interception during a delivery at the Springfield State Office Building.
Fox explained, "The investigation stemmed from two prior drug seizures. Authorities intercepted and searched two suspicious packages at Hotel UMass (University of Massachusetts Amherst) in Amherst on Oct. 10 and found about 13 kilograms of suspected cocaine."
The suspect previously worked at that location.
Prosecutors continued, "Evidence collected during that operation was consistent with the narcotics recovered during the most recent controlled delivery in Springfield."
Trump's war on drugs has included missile strikes on many boats that were caught en route to the United States with loads of drugs. The smugglers, in those strikes, sometimes have been killed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Mandy Patinkin, the Jewish actor most famous for saying, "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die" in 1987's "The Princess Bride" film, is now endorsing Zohran Mamdani, the Islamic candidate for New York City mayor.
And not only does Patinkin think the Uganda-born Democratic Socialist he calls an "extraordinary human being" could do a good job running the Big Apple, he believes the Muslim could lead America and the entire world.
In a video posted Tuesday, Patinkin and his wife, actress Kathryn Grody, are seen arm in arm with Mamdani, as Patinkin says: "We are going to win this because we have this extraordinary human being who is going to lead our city, and eventually, if we're really thinking, our nation and the world to a better, safer and all-inclusive existence. And that's what I love about this guy."
"You can't do anything better than get out that vote, get your friends to vote, knock on doors, make some phone calls and don't waste a second," the actor continued.
"Drive people to the polls. Get everyone to vote. It matters that they're engaged and that they're changing our city, our country, our world."
Patinkin's fellow actor Randy Quaid, co-star of the holiday classic "Christmas Vacation," saw the video, and called Mamdani and Patinkin: "PINKO COMMIES."
Paul A. Szypula sounded a warning on X, saying: "Actor Mandy Patinkin takes off the mask and reveals that what the far-left really wants is Zohran Mamdani as president.
"Forget about the fact that it's completely unconstitutional since Mamdani is a naturalized citizen. You have to be a natural-born citizen.
"But what Patinkin says is telling, he wants the U.S. and the world to become Muslim. It was never about acceptance, equality, or peace. It was always about jihadists conquering all.
"This is one of many reasons why Mamdani cannot be allowed to win. Whatever legal it takes to stop him needs to happen. Deportation seems plausible."
In a New York Times interview, Patinkin passionately condemned Israel's leadership, saying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "endangering" Jews worldwide with the war against Islamic terrorists in Gaza.
"I ask Jews all over the world to consider what this man, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his right-wing government is doing to the Jewish people all over the world," Patinkin said.
"They are endangering not only the state of Israel which I care deeply about and want to exist, but they are endangering the Jewish population all over the world. He is the most dangerous thing not just since Oct. 7."
The Jerusalem Post reports: "Patinkin and his wife, Kathryn Grody, used a New York Times Magazine interview in July to condemn Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and to urge Jews worldwide to reflect on whether the situation is 'acceptable and sustainable.'
"Grody said compassion for Gazans is 'very Jewish' and rejected claims that criticizing Israeli policy is antisemitic. Patinkin recalled disliking Benjamin Netanyahu's 'vibe' when he first encountered him in the 1980s and argued that Netanyahu's right-wing government endangers both Israel and Jews globally, asking Jews to consider the moral cost of the war.
"The remarks fit Patinkin's long record of left-leaning activism on Israel, including a 2020 New Israel Fund video opposing West Bank annexation, a 2021 thread calling for Palestinian 'liberation,' and declining to join a 1998 tribute for Israel's 50th anniversary. The comments drew sharp backlash from pro-Israel influencers online, while many on the New York Times' TikTok praised Patinkin."
Early voting is already taking place in New York City, with Election Day next Tuesday, Nov. 4.
Mamdani has been leading in the polls against former Gov. Andrew Cuomo who is running as an independent, and Republican Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As President Donald Trump endures ongoing public rage over his demolition of the White House East Wing and plans to erect a huge ballroom in its place, it turns out that a major expansion of the executive mansion has been in the minds of engineers and architects going back to the 19th century.
According to the White House Historical Association, in the mid-1800s concerns arose that the Washington City Canal nearby could affect the president's health.
"In the summer the stench, insects, and miasmic heat and humidity from stagnant marshes in the environs of the White House was intolerable and considered to be a cause of fevers and waterborne illness," notes the WHHA.
The solution was to look for land to build a new presidential residence and use the White House for only ceremonial purposes – a plan that never came to fruition due to a lack of funding from Congress.
In 1889, first lady Caroline Harrison began to develop ideas for an ambitious White House project to mark the anniversary of the building. She thought the White House needed more space, especially for dining and receptions. Again, Congress balked, and the expansion did not take place.
The centennial of the first resident moving into the White House, President John Adams, was held in 1900, and part of the celebration included the presentation of a model for expansion, developed by Army engineer Col. Theodore Bingham.
The White House Historical Association notes: "The model revealed plans to replace the crowded working spaces with new offices, public and entertaining spaces and press rooms by constructing massive, flanking two-story cylindrical wings with domes and lanterns patterned after those at the Library of Congress. Bingham set up his model in the East Room and, after the president viewed the display and greeted the guests, rose to present a history of the White House that evolved into a sales pitch for the expansion. Roundly criticized by the architectural profession, the project stalled, and after President McKinley's assassination awaited a new chief executive's decision."
A newspaper account in 1901 relayed, "The plans provide for two buildings, one to be erected on the east and another on the west, each of these being about the same size as the present mansion and connected with it by curved wings."
The plan was significantly downsized and turned into what was known as the Roosevelt Restoration. It included living-quarter renovations and the addition of space to the east for the president and his staff.
The more ambitious plans of Col. Bingham were not realized, nor were Mrs. Harrison's desire for a larger place for dining – something certainly fulfilled in President Trump's plan for a room large enough to seat 999 guests for dinner, as opposed to a few dozen in the current East Room.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two federal prosecutors have been put on an administrative leave only hours after they filed a court document where they editorialized about how the Jan. 6, 2021, events in Washington were carried out by a "mob of rioters."
That's when thousands of protesters challenging the validity of Joe Biden's election to the Oval Office gathered. A few hundred did violate the law by going into the Capitol without permission, and a fraction of those vandalized it.
It turns out that the election was influenced by several outside and unique factors, including Mark Zuckerberg's handouts of $400 million plus to local election officials who often used it to recruit voters in Democrat districts, and the FBI's interference when it described accurate accounts of Biden family scandals as Russian disinformation. President Donald Trump later issued a pardon for most of the offenses from that day.
Earlier, a number of the prosecutors who pursued extreme charging and sentencing standards for offenders were dismissed or demoted.
But now two others, Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White, both assistant U.S. attorneys, have been assigned a leave after editorializing in a statement to the court in a case involving Taylor Taranto. He was a recipient of Trump's pardon for J6, but later involved himself in situations that generated other charges.
A report at Politico said Valdivia and White claimed the J6 events were done by "thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters," the report said.
It came in a sentencing recommendation for Taranto, where the prosecutors called for a term of more than two years for a hoax threat against a federal bureaucracy, and for driving in a neighborhood where Barack Obama's owns an expensive home while having firearms in his vehicle.
The prosecutors also alleged that Taranto was involved in having "promoted conspiracy theories about the events of January 6, 2021."
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, who leads the Washington, D.C., office prosecuting Taranto, said, "While we don't comment on personnel decisions, we want to make very clear that we take violence and threats of violence against law enforcement, current or former government officials extremely seriously."
Politico's report said Valdivia and White claimed Taranto returned to Washington in 2023 and "made livestreamed threats to blow up his van outside the National Institute of Standards and Technology," then drove his van, carrying weapons, through Obama's Kalorama neighborhood.
Politico explained, "It's unclear which portion of the memo triggered the move by Justice Department officials to place Valdivia and White on leave. However, they're the latest Jan. 6 prosecutors to face punishment for their involvement in related cases. Dozens of others were either terminated or demoted. One of them, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Gordon, is suing over his termination."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A congressional report has found that Joe Biden's aides arranged for the autopen signings of executive actions, directed policy and orchestrated his public appearances, literally exercising presidential authorities without his knowledge or consent, as his cognitive decline advanced.
The 90-page report, "The Biden Autopen President: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House," charges that Biden's close associates actually ran the government during his final months in office.
U.S. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the chief of the House Oversight Committee, concluded the findings have raised "constitutional and criminal concerns" about actions "Biden" took while in office.
A report at Fox News said the committee has demanded a complete investigation into the autopen signatures that Biden's associates arranged.
"Faced with the cognitive decline of President Joe Biden, White House aides — at the direction of the inner circle — hid the truth about the former president's condition and fitness for office," charged the report. And there was a "haphazard documentation process" for pardons made by Biden.
The committee said those procedures "left room for doubt over whether the former president made those decisions himself," the report said. In fact, the report simply said those actions now are "void."
"In the absence of sufficient contemporaneous documentation indicating that cognitively deteriorating President Biden himself made a given executive decision, such decisions do not carry the force of law and should be considered void," committee members concluded.
"The Department of Justice should immediately conduct a review of all executive actions taken by President Biden between January 20, 2021, and January 19, 2025. Given the patterns and findings detailed herein, this review should focus particularly on all acts of clemency. However, it should also include all other types of executive actions."
Further, the report raised concerns about Hunter Biden's influence, since former Biden chief of staff Jeff Zients has told investigators he was in the room for many discussions, including the preemptive pardons issued to Biden's family.
Comer's report said, "Zients testified that President Biden included his son, Hunter Biden, in the decision-making process for and meetings about pardons. This apparently included the meeting to discuss the pardons of five Biden family members, Dr. Anthony Fauci, General Mark Milley, and the members of Congress who served on the Select Subcommittee to Investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol, and their staff."
A Biden regime spokesperson told Fox News Digital the investigation was "baseless," even though 14 witnesses testified to Oversight, mostly top Biden aides.
Even during that testimony, Comer suggested, the aides were hiding things.
"Throughout the Committee's investigation, senior Biden White House aides presented a perspective of President Biden's cognitive health completely disconnected from that of the American public," the report said. "Not one of the Committee's 14 witnesses was willing to admit that they ever had a concern about President Biden being in cognitive decline. In fact, numerous witnesses could not recall having a single conversation about President Biden's cognitive health with anyone inside or outside of the White House."
According to a report in the Washington Examiner, Comer's report found, "Biden's aides misled the American people and hijacked the powers of the presidency. … Executive actions performed by Biden White House staff and signed by autopen are null and void."
For example, the committee found 32 of 51 clemency warrants were signed by autopen, "without any contemporaneous documentation linking Biden to those discussions," leaving no evidence the president agreed to the actions.
The Examiner explained, "A Jan. 19 episode detailed in the report describes a 'game of telephone' in which chief of staff Jeff Zients authorized the autopen for a final batch of pardons, including for his son Hunter Biden and four other family members, as well as Anthony Fauci, and Gen. Mark Milley, based only on secondhand accounts of a meeting he never attended. An aide emailed approval from Zients's account, initialed 'JZ,' without confirming with Biden directly, according to the report."
The report also criticizes ex-White House physician Kevin O'Connor, Biden's longtime doctor, "noting that he had 'business dealings with and financial connections to President Biden's family.' Investigators said those ties, combined with political incentives to keep Biden viable for reelection, created 'a motive to conceal the president's decline while running the government in his stead,'" the Examiner explained.
Comer's report also revealed former aides confirmed an entire system of pre-scripted press cards, controlled questions, teleprompter use, schematics outlining the number of steps he would take and the time he would use during any public appearance.
Democrats on the Oversight Committee cited Biden's own statements rejecting evidence he was unaware of decisions, and said the Republican report is conjecture.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Four weeks into the federal government shutdown, a woman claiming she's out of food stamps is bragging online about stealing from a grocery store while urging others to steal at will and "infiltrate" churches to get cash.
The woman who goes by "consiracycutiee" and has a username of @jaalagotanattitude posted her illegal shoplifting exploits on social media, using extremely graphic language.
"Everything out here is yours," she said. "Whether or not you take it, they call that sh** free will. I call that sh** eminent domain. You know what I'm saying? One thing I learned from the white men: Take it!"
"I don't give a f*** who's already sitting there. I don't give a f*** if your land was already established. B*tch, it's mine now, and I want it. That is what we should be preaching in the land to the f***ing masses.
"Act more like a white man. Take it for yourself, b*tch, and you won't be worried about who don't got it. You see what I'm saying? Get out there and ravish!"
"Last but not least, go into that church and infiltrate. Don't be stupid. Get in there. Ask them for some rent money. Ask them for some help. You've been tithing. Say your lights is off. You need a stipend. You need some food. Go to the church."
She concluded: "If the pastor don't help you out, blast him on social media. Quickest way to f*** up the church's money is ask for some."
Another foul-mouthed woman asked anyone who plans to steal to let her know so she could join the thievery.
"Let's band together and take these mother****ing markets down, b*tch," she exclaimed.
"I'm just as frustrated, I'm just as hungry and honestly, I'm just as f***ing broke. So if y'all are gonna f*** sh** up once they take y'all's stamps, put me in the f***ing game, coach."
One man urged people to steal irrespective of their financial aid being cut off.
"In light of the government cutting SNAP benefits Nov. 1, I want to remind everybody that stealing is never wrong. Sealing from multi-billion-dollar businesses is always OK, if not encouraged."
"Five-finger discount. It's the best discount you could ever get," he surmised.
But there are warnings appearing on social media about potentially fatal pushback against any thefts.
"I've also seen a lot of videos talking about how people are gonna grab baskets whenever they come out of the store. That way they're not stealing from a store, they're stealing from an individual," explained one man.
"Well, you grab my shopping cart full of groceries that I bought and paid for with my f***ing money, and you gonna hear two sounds. There are gonna be three sounds maybe.
"The first sound you're gonna hear is me saying, 'Ahem, that's a bad idea there. You better walk the f*** on.' If you don't walk the f*** on [as he apparently audibly cocks a gun], that'll be the next sound you f***ing hear."
"And the third sound is a sound I'll hear, but you won't."
"Now people are gonna come back on this video and say, 'You'd end somebody over a basket full of groceries?' Yeah, I would. You damn right, 'cause that person that decided to steal from me, they've already decided that that's what their life is worth.
"Well, they made that decision. They made that choice. You don't f***ing steal from me. F*** around and find out."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hundreds of "noncitizens" who allegedly registered to vote, or even voted, in Ohio elections have been referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced he has found more than 1,000 noncitizens who "appear to have registered to vote unlawfully in Ohio," and all of them, 1,084 individuals, have been sent to the DOJ to face prosecution.
"Ohio has earned its reputation as the Gold Standard, and our Election Integrity Unit continues to prove why," he told Fox News Digital. "We work tirelessly to ensure that every eligible voter's voice is heard, and anyone who tries to cheat the system will face serious consequences."
He noted 167 of the individuals appear to have actually cast a ballot in a federal election, and there were 135 others referred for "other unlawful voting activity." Some of those allegedly voted in two locations in Ohio, or in two states, in the same election. Several appear to have voted "after the date of their death."
The work is part of LaRose's plan to clean up Ohio's voter rolls, launched before the 2024 vote.
Part of that work included his lawsuit against Joe Biden because of his administration's refusal to provide data that could have back then helped identify those in various schemes.
The report explained his office also took more than 155,000 names on voter registration rolls because they were abandoned or inactive.
The report explained the names came up when investigators cross-checked lists provided by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Homeland Security's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database, the Social Security records and more.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrat Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is denying he has suggested President Donald Trump is like infamous Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, while MSNBC's Nicole Wallace says no Democrat has implied that, despite an avalanche of video evidence to the contrary.
On "The Best People with Nicolle Wallace" Monday, Pritzker asserted: "I haven't suggested that Donald Trump is Hitler."
Wallace replied, "I don't think any Democrat has. I think it's a smear that they project back onto critics."
LisbofTikTok is calling Pritzker a "disgusting liar," posting a video montage of the governor comparing Trump to Nazis.
It was only last week at the Economic Club of Chicago that Pritzker linked Trump's actions with ICE and Border Patrol agents to Nazi attacks against Jews in 1930s Germany.
"This is how authoritarian regimes do it," Pritzker said.
"They create these kind of fake ideas that there's an enemy out there and it could be sitting next to you at one of these tables. So just somebody sitting at your table that you don't like might be one of those enemies. So let's round them up, let's make sure they are the subjects of the laws that we're passing, because we don't like who they are. That is what authoritarian regimes do."
"I can tell you, sitting next to Holocaust survivors, that what they will say in this moment is 'This is what happened. This is what happened – people's rights started getting taken away. People got accused of being immigrants' – this is before the Holocaust really took place."
As far as Wallace's claim that no Democrat has suggested Trump is Hitler, there's a long list of party members that have made the connection.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
NEW - Hillary Clinton: "Well, Hitler was duly elected…Trump is telling us what he intends to do."
Former President Joe Biden:
Donald Trump posted an ad echoing the language of Nazi Germany. He only cares about holding on to power. I care about you.
U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett:
Deranged Jasmine Crockett goes on an unhinged rant calling President Trump “Temu Hitler.” This is the kind of rhetoric that led to two assassination attempts against President Trump.
U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman:
WATCH: Democrats claim they've "Never" incited that Donald Trump is Hitler? Here is Rep. Dan Goldman (D) claiming that President Trump wants to "become a Vladimir Putin or to become a Adolf Hitler, or Kim Jong Un." "That's what he wants to be!"
MSNBC's Joy Reid:
“Just undeniable.” Joy Reid makes stunning two and a half minute long direct comparison of Trump to Hitler. (Video: MSNBC)
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reveals the massive damage inflicted by hate campaigns that are launched against academics across America when they say something of which "the mob" disapproves.
FIRE surveyed more than 600 academics listed in its Scholars under Fire database who were sanctioned or targeted from 2020 to 2024, and 209 responded.
"Nearly all (94%) who participated in the survey described the impact of their experience as negative. Roughly two-thirds (65%) experienced emotional distress, and significant chunks reported facing harrowing social setbacks, such as being shunned at work (40%) or losing professional relationships (47%) and friendships (33%)," the organization reported. "For some, the consequences were severe. About a quarter of the scholars who completed the survey reported that they sought psychological counseling (27%), and 1 in 5 lost their jobs entirely (20%)."
Nathan Honeycutt, the organization's manager of polling and analytics, said, "Cancellation campaigns are often wrapped in the language of preventing 'emotional harm.' But our survey shows that it's the mobs themselves that inflict lasting mental anguish on academics, many of whom still suffer the consequences long after the controversy subsided."
The report found the attacks to be one-sided, citing large numbers of professors, one in three, who say they have "toned down" their statements for fear of causing controversy: "These concerns are especially pronounced among politically moderate and conservative faculty members, who report self-censoring more frequently than they liberal and progressive colleagues.
"They also express greater worry about damaging their reputations or losing their jobs. In the 2024 faculty survey, for instance, more than half of conservative respondents reported at least occasionally hiding their political beliefs from peers in order to protect their careers. It remains unclear whether this climate of fear is primarily driven by the threat of cancellation itself or by the broader unwillingness of faculty to defend foundational principles of free expression," the report said.
The database from which FIRE drew contact includes a list of those who faced calls for sanction for their speech from 2000 to now.
"This database includes almost 1,700 documented sanction attempts, including a record number this year, with 300 of these attempts resulting in faculty terminations. Most of these incidents have occurred over the past decade."
One professor wrote, "Due to the extreme amount of hate mail and voicemails I received, I had a campus police officer posted outside my class for a period of time and an escort to my vehicle. My husband was constantly worried about my safety, we rarely went places in public, and my mother was harassed online by complete strangers."
Another found an email message: "You are unintelligent. You are poorly educated. You are nauseatingly fat and hideous. Your life has no value. Kill yourself."
They reported their families frequently were caught in the fallout, and there was a chilling effect.
""Overall, scholars were split on whether they'd speak similarly again. Along ideological lines, liberals were more likely to report their speech being chilled (i.e., that they were less likely to say similar things in the future), while conservatives were more likely to indicate they were not detracted (i.e., that they were as much, if not more likely, to say similar things in the future)," the survey found.
Further, "Public silence sends a message about what views are acceptable and safe to express, effectively narrowing the range of ideas deemed reasonable to discuss on campus. This may result in topic avoidance in teaching and research, especially on contested or policy-relevant issues."
Of the respondents, 65% reported emotional distress, 53% lost sleep, 47% lost professional relationships, 40% were shunned at work, 29% had family members with collateral damage, 27% sought counseling, and 20% lost jobs.
One of the problems that was revealed, FIRE said, was that "Nearly all institutions of higher learning promise academic freedom and free speech rights to their scholars. But many of the targeted scholars reported that they received no support from precisely the institutions and individuals who were supposed to have their backs in moments of crisis and controversy. Only 21% reported that they received at least a moderate amount of public support of their faculty union, for example, and a paltry 11% reported that they received public support from administrators."
FIRE said its report "also found a noticeable partisan gap in the level of public support reported by scholars. Larger proportions of conservative than liberal faculty reported that they received support from the general public (55% vs. 37%). But far fewer than their liberal peers reported that they received public support from their faculty union (7% vs. 29%) or their university colleagues (19% vs. 40%)."
"Support for academic freedom should never depend on the views being expressed, but our survey shows that's exactly what's happening," said FIRE research advisor Sean Stevens. "If faculty unions and institutions of higher learning won't stand by scholars in their moments of crisis, they can't claim to stand for free speech and inquiry."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
When the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, accused President Donald Trump of felonies in a so-called hush money case, the judge, Juan Merchan, censored Trump's statements about the case. He allowed prosecutors to leave a vague "secondary" crime claim in place without any specifics. He delivered pro-prosecution jury instructions which seemed to allow a verdict without unanimity.
And all the while, Merchan's daughter was making money advising Democrats on issues that could include her father's courtroom rulings.
Now the president is appealing, with his lawyers explaining the Supreme Court's immunity ruling means prosecutors should not have been allowed to say some of the things they claimed about Trump.
The Washington Examiner reports Trump's legal team confirmed the Supreme Court's decision on immunity "means prosecutors should have been barred from using evidence connected to Trump's 'official' acts as president in the case against him."
"Trump also urged a federal appeals court to transfer the New York state criminal case to federal court. It's similar to the president's move over the summer, when his lawyers urged a federal appeals panel to move the hush money case. Such a change could open up the pathway for the Supreme Court to hear the case, which could be friendlier territory for the president, as the court has ruled largely in his favor on presidential immunity," the report explained.
It was in 2024 that a jury in leftist-majority Manhattan said he was guilty of falsifying records dealing with a payment to onetime porn star Stormy Daniels, 34 counts total.
The errors made in the trial court, however, mean the conviction should be scrapped, the report said.
Merchan, a donor to a Democrat cause, in fact, barred some of Trump's defense evidence, including statements that appeared to exonerate him from Daniels herself, censored Trump's speech, delivered pro-prosecution instructions, and more.
"One of the mistakes some legal critics believe was committed during the trial involved allegations that the New York district attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, never committed itself to what the second crime was. Rather, his office theorized that the crime could have been a New York tax violation, a federal campaign finance violation, or a New York election law violation," the report explained.
The law violation brought by Bragg is a two-part crime, meaning it depends on violation of another statute, and the prosecution never clarified that. That means some members of the jury may have assumed one law, or another, leaving their verdict not unanimous.
"The court permitted the jury to convict if some jurors believed only that President Trump had conspired to violate FECA, while others believed only that he had conspired to help others commit tax fraud, and still others believed only that he had conspired to help others make false statements to a bank," appeals court filings said. "Due process and Section 17-152 do not permit a conviction based on such a haphazard 'combination of jury findings.'"
At sentencing, Merchan spent seven minutes complaining that he was limited in his sentencing, then gave Trump an unconditional discharge, allowing for no fines, jail or probation while continuing the felony convictions.
Merchan, whose daughter is a consultant who was making money off of her father's multiple rulings against Trump, claimed "extraordinary" legal protections handed to the president of the United States required him to hand down a minor sentence that Trump would allegedly not have received without being reelected.
"While one can argue that the trial itself was in many respects somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing and that is because of the office [Trump] once occupied, and which you will soon occupy again," Merchan told the president-elect. "To be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the office of the president of the United States that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office. The legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal prosecution, afforded to the office of the president have been laid out by our founders, the Constitution and most recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Trump versus the United States, which was decided on July 1, 2024.
"As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors to inform my decision … The considerable, indeed, extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the chief executive, is a factor that overrides all others," the judge continued.
Merchan, in extraordinary fashion, allowed a wide range of inflammatory testimony to come into his courtroom against Trump. The substance of the complaint was that Bragg claimed a $130,000 non-disclosure agreement with former porn actress Stormy Daniels, paid through Trump's then-lawyer as legal fees, were not legal fees. Bragg claimed that calling legal fees legal fees was "falsifying business records."
A long list of legal experts charged that the case never should have been created by Bragg. Merchan, in fact, inexplicably told the jurors their verdict didn't have to be unanimous.
The payment was for Daniels' silence about an alleged affair, which Trump has confirmed never happened. Trump said the payments were part of a standard legal retainer and denied knowing of any unlawful scheme.
The "offenses" actually were misdemeanors until Bragg theorized they were part of the furtherance of another, unidentified, crime, and that made them felonies. Experts called Bragg's machinations "legally creative."