The Supreme Court of Iowa says that lawmakers do not need to hand over documents related to their work on a 2021 election law. 

This is because the court found that these documents are protected by legislative privilege.

The court, according to the local outlet KCCI 8, rendered its decision in the case on Friday, Feb. 23, 2024.

The lawsuit came from the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Background

KCCI 8 explains, "The League of United Latin American Citizens sued the State over the law that shortened Iowa's early voting period from 29 days to 20 and reduced the hours at polling places."

This law was passed in 2021. It was pushed by state Republicans in response to concerns about voting fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

The Des Moines Register, at the time, reported:

Iowa is among a national wave of Republican-led states whose leaders have expressed concerns about the integrity of the 2020 elections, taking the lead from former President Donald Trump, who falsely claimed the election was stolen from him. States such as Florida and Georgia have undertaken high-profile efforts to limit absentee voting after the practice surged in 2020.

The League of United Latin American Citizens alleged, in their lawsuit, that this law violates the state's constitutional protections for the right of citizens to vote in elections.

As part of their lawsuit, KCCI 8 reports, "The group was seeking documents detailing meetings lawmakers had with non-legislators while developing the plan" for the law.

That's privileged

Now, the state's supreme court has ruled that the lawmakers do not have to turn these documents over to the League of United Latin American Citizens.

The Des Moines Register reports, "In a decision Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled those communications are both privileged and irrelevant to the case."

The outlet further reports that the state supreme court "held, for the first time, that the Iowa Constitution shields legislative communications, including with non-legislators, when they relate to considering and passing legislation."

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver, one of the legislators targeted by the lawsuit, praised the ruling.

He said:

I appreciate the decision today from a unanimous Supreme Court. Iowans and organizations they support must have the freedom to engage with their elected officials on issues of personal importance to them without fear of public retribution from their opponents.

Thursday, Feb. 22, marked the general deadline for filing most pre-trial motions in former President Donald Trump's classified documents case in South Florida which Special Counsel Jack Smith is criminally prosecuting.

Trump's defense attorney filed for separate but related motions to dismiss some or all of the charges, and presiding District Judge Aileen Cannon ordered Smith to respond to those motions within two weeks, or no later than March 7, according to the court's docket.

Trump seeks to dismiss the classified documents charges against him

The classified documents case is tentatively scheduled to go to trial near the end of May. Yet, given the complexity and time-consuming procedures for handling classified materials in a courtroom setting -- to say nothing of how the judge might rule on the dismissal motions -- it seems more likely than not that the trial will be delayed until some unspecified future date ... if it ever takes place at all.

Breitbart reported that former President Trump's four dismissal motions were based on his claims of presidential immunity, that one of the key statutes pressed against him was "unconstitutionally vague," that Special Counsel Smith's initial appointment and continued funding are unlawful, and that he had the full and sole authority under the Presidential Records Act to retain any documents from his administration that he saw fit.

Some of those claims have been raised by Trump and others on his behalf in his other federal election-related criminal prosecution by Smith, such as the immunity claim and the unlawful appointment claim, though they were rejected by the D.C. courts and are now awaiting adjudication at the Supreme Court.

Presidential immunity from prosecution

In fact, in the 22-page motion to dismiss for presidential immunity, Trump's attorney wrote, "The D.C. Circuit recently erred in finding that President Trump was not entitled to presidential immunity in connection with the set of criminal charges pending in the District of Columbia."

"The D.C. Circuit’s analysis is not persuasive for many of the reasons discussed below, and President Trump is pursuing further review of that erroneous decision, including en banc review if allowed, and review in the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary," he added. "This Court should not follow the D.C. Circuit’s non-binding, poorly reasoned decision."

As for his main immunity argument, the motion stated, "Specifically, President Trump is immune from prosecution on Counts 1 through 32 because the charges turn on his alleged decision to designate records as personal under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”) and to cause the records to be moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, President Trump made this decision while he was still in office. The alleged decision was an official act, and as such is subject to presidential immunity."

"The Court should hold a hearing to resolve any factual disputes relating to the official nature of President Trump’s PRA designation and the removal of his personal records from the White House," Trump's attorney added. "Following any necessary hearing, the Court should dismiss Counts 1 through 32."

Criminal charge is too vague, Smith's appointment was unlawful, and Trump is covered by PRA

Moving on, former President Trump's attorney filed a 20-page motion to dismiss based on the "unconstitutional vagueness" of a particular criminal statute that underlines a majority of the charges, namely 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), which deals with the "unauthorized possession" of defense-related information paired with the subject "willfully" disclosing that information to others or retaining and refusing to turn it over to an authority "entitled to receive it."

The motion detailed several cases over the decades that called into question the meaning of various phrases within that statute and argued that, regardless of what those meanings might ultimately be, it still didn't apply to Trump in his role as the president.

Then there was the 16-page motion to dismiss based on the claim that Special Counsel Smith's initial appointment and the continued funding of his office are unlawful and violate both the Appointments Clause and Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution -- an argument first raised by former Attorney General Ed Meese and constitutional law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson.

The gist of that argument is that Congress never authorized a "special counsel" position and that anyone Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed to that unauthorized role must first be confirmed by the Senate for some other authorized office, such as a U.S. attorney. It further argues that the special counsel's office draws a sort of blank-check "off the books" funding from a holdover account related to the now-defunct "independent counsel" position, and not through the normal congressional appropriations process.

Finally, Trump's attorney filed a 17-page motion to dismiss the entire indictment based on the claim that Trump, by way of the President Records Act, had the sole and "unreviewable" authority to determine what records were "presidential," and thus must be turned over to the National Archives, and what were "personal" and could be retained in his possession.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, like so many other progressive leftist prosecutors, has a penchant for a soft touch toward alleged criminals, whom he often releases from custody with low or no bail pending charges and trial for their alleged criminal behavior.

Bragg is now furious that his reputation is being used against him by an Arizona prosecutor who is refusing to extradite an alleged murder suspect to New York over her concerns that the alleged career criminal with a history of violence will eventually end up back on the streets, according to ABC News.

Instead, Maricopa County District Attorney Rachel Mitchell intends to fully prosecute the wanted suspect for multiple serious crimes he allegedly committed in the Phoenix area before turning him back over to New York authorities.

Almansoori wanted in multiple states for several violent crimes

At issue here, according to New York's local Fox affiliate WNYW, is an alleged career criminal named Raad Almansoori, 26, who is wanted in New York for allegedly beating and strangling to death a woman named Denisse Oleas-Arancibia, 38, in a SoHo hotel room on Feb. 8.

While police were searching for the suspect in and around NYC, he reportedly turned up in the Phoenix area about a week later, where he is alleged to have committed several other crimes before he was eventually arrested and held in custody.

Those purported crimes include an attempted carjacking and stabbing of a woman in Glendale on Feb. 17, followed one later by the attempted rape and stabbing of a female McDonald's employee in the restaurant's bathroom in the Surprise suburb.

Per law enforcement authorities, Almansoori is also wanted for alleged violent crimes in Florida and Texas, and it was reported that when he was taken into custody on Feb. 18, he admitted to not just the crimes in the Phoenix area but also the murder in New York, and further asserted that he had been looking for another victim when he'd been apprehended.

He is currently being held on a slew of criminal charges and a $250,000 bond at the Maricopa County jail.

Mitchell said "it's safer to keep him here and keep him in custody"

The Arizona Republic reported that Maricopa County DA Mitchell held a press conference on Wednesday in which she revealed that she had no intention of extraditing Almansoori back to New York to face accountability for the alleged murder he committed there.

"Having observed the treatment of violent criminals in the New York area by the Manhattan DA," Mitchell said, "I think it's safer to keep him here and keep him in custody so he cannot be out doing this to individuals in our state or county or anywhere else."

The Manhattan DA's office was none too pleased by Mitchell's "deeply disturbing" commentary, which the office attributed to the Arizona prosecutor "playing political games" with a murder suspect in a statement -- only for Mitchell to then fire back on social media, "It’s great to see the @ManhattanDA finally take interest in violent crime. My job is to focus on the victims I was elected to protect."

Bragg accused Mitchell of "old-fashioned grandstanding and politics"

ABC News reported that DA Bragg held a press conference Thursday to address DA Mitchell's refusal to extradite Almansoori, and said, "Her reasoning? Not because that's what the law dictates. Not because that's what advances justice. Not because of a concern for victims. Not at the request of the NYPD. But rather, plain and simple, old-fashioned grandstanding and politics."

"That should have no place in our profession," he continued. "It is deeply disturbing to me that a member of my profession ... would choose to play political games in a murder case."

Bragg went on to assert that Mitchell should have called him first to discuss the issue but also suggested that he might go above her head and submit an extradition package to Arizona's Democratic governor for her review and possible approval, and added, "This is not the Maricopa County attorney's decision, and I'm hoping that facts, law, justice, and reason will prevail."

The second gentleman Doug Emhoff, husband to Vice President Kamala Harris, recently shared with the public some tidbits of information about his wife and their marriage that most Americans probably aren't fully aware of, People magazine reported.

Those revelations came during a rapid-fire segment on the Bravo network's "Watch What Happens Live!" program hosted by Andy Cohen.

Emhoff revealed Harris' taste in music, heralded her cooking, spoke of her humorous impressions of his elderly mother, asserted how "family-oriented" she was, and praised her career history of "public service."

Harris loves old-school hip-hop, cooking, and impersonating her elderly mother-in-law

Cohen asked Emhoff to share with the audience a "top five" list of "things you may not know about the vice president." The second gentleman first revealed that VP Harris "loves old-school hip-hop," particularly from the "Bay Area" in California where she hails from, and further confirmed that she sometimes calls him "Dougie," as in old-school rapper Doug E. Fresh, who once made an appearance at a "hip-hop party" they hosted.

Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff counts down the top five things you may not know about Vice President Kamala Harris. #WWHL #WWH5 pic.twitter.com/nuSMT2g1X9

— Watch What Happens Live! (@BravoWWHL) February 20, 2024

"She is an amazing, amazing chef" who "loves to cook," he continued, and when asked by Cohen about the rumors that Harris prepares and freezes sauces for Emhoff ahead of out-of-town trips, Emhoff admitted, "There are some waiting for me."

"She does an incredible impersonation of my 83-year-old Jewish mother, Barb," he said as he tried to mimic Harris. "'Look at you. Look --' and so she’s incredible at impersonations."

Harris a "family-oriented" person dedicated to "public service"

Emhoff also said Harris "loves, loves, loves her family, like she’s so family-oriented," and proceeded to reveal that she had recently officiated the wedding of his son Cole to girlfriend Greenley Littlejohn, and added, "and she just loves being around her family."

Finally, the second gentleman claimed the vice president "has been a public servant her entire career. She's never done anything else but serve the people and do things to try and make our lives better, so that's the main thing about her that I love so much."

Indeed, People magazine noted that Harris' career as a public servant began in California's Alameda County as a deputy district attorney, followed by a stint as the San Francisco district attorney, then as the California attorney general, after which she served as a U.S. senator from California before being tapped as President Joe Biden's running mate in 2020 when her own presidential campaign flamed out prior to the start of the primary election season.

Emhoff was "unimpressed" with Cohen's mockery of Pence family

While second gentleman Emhoff's appearance on Bravo's "Watch What Happens Live!" was a generally lighthearted affair, there was at least one moment when host Cohen seemed to take his snarky partisan humor a bit too far for Emhoff's liking, according to The Recount.

Cohen asked Emhoff about the post-2020 election transition and whether former second lady Karen Pence helped him get situated in the role as the vice president's spouse, to which Emhoff replied, "She did, actually. She was great," and added, "There’s only so few people you can talk to about being in these roles, and she was one of them. And she was -- she was very helpful."

The host then sarcastically shouted "Mommy!," an allusion to former Vice President Mike Pence's habit of referring to his wife, the matriarch of the Pence family, as "Mother."

The Recount observed that Emhoff was less than pleased with that particular outburst, and described him as having a rather "unimpressed facial expression" in response to Cohen's subtle mockery of the former second couple.

Of the four criminal cases against former President Donald Trump, only one of the four presiding judges -- U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the classified documents case in South Florida -- has acted in a generally fair or favorable manner toward the defendant throughout the pre-trial proceedings.

That, ironically, may result in Judge Cannon being removed from the case by an appeals court, if Special Counsel Jack Smith and the left-leaning legal analysts supporting his anti-Trump prosecution get their way, according to Slate.

Smith and his backers are incensed that the federal judge, who was appointed to the bench by Trump himself in 2020, has dared to occasionally rule against Smith and in favor of the former president on various pre-trial motions.

Smith likely seeking appellate reversal or removal of Cannon

Writing for Slate, left-leaning legal analysts Norm Eisen and Joshua Kolb outlined how Special Counsel Smith is likely preparing to go above Judge Cannon's head and ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse at least one, if not two, recent orders Cannon issued on pre-trial motions that were viewed as overly favorable to former President Trump.

In the first instance, Cannon sided with Trump in opposition to Smith's efforts to file entire evidentiary motions under seal, which included information about potential witnesses, and instead ordered that they be filed publicly with normal redactions for sensitive information.

Smith took the bold step of urging the judge to reconsider that ruling and reverse her "clear error" of allegedly employing the wrong legal standard to the issue that resulted in "unreasonable hurdles" for Smith to clear if he wanted to keep all of that evidentiary information secret from not just the public but also the defendants.

In the second instance that could prompt an appeal to the 11th Circuit, it is alleged that Cannon agreed to grant the defendants access to highly classified information that, again, will be used as evidence against them once the matter eventually reaches trial.

The legal analysts surmised that Smith could bypass Cannon and ask the appeals court to overrule her on those two orders -- the 11th Circuit already overturned Cannon's appointment of a special master to oversee the FBI's handling of the classified materials seized from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in the 2022 raid -- if not remove her from the case and reassign it to another district judge within the circuit's jurisdiction.

Smith trying to use Cannon's own words against her

A similar supposition came earlier this month from left-leaning Salon, which also cited liberal legal experts in predicting, if not openly advising, Special Counsel Smith to seek early appellate action from the 11th Circuit against rulings from Judge Cannon that are viewed as too favorable for former President Trump.

That article noted how Smith had attempted to force Cannon to rule against Trump's claim of selective and "unfair prosecution" by highlighting a prior case in which then-federal prosecutor Cannon had argued against similar claims made by drug dealers she was prosecuting.

Given that and the other alleged "missteps" by the judge, it has been suggested that Smith will take his complaints to the 11th Circuit and insist that Cannon be recused from the case, or at the very least be overturned on the particular orders with which the prosecutor has taken issue.

Cannon has ruled against Trump on occasion

Judge Cannon is undoubtedly well aware of what Special Counsel Smith may attempt to do if he continues to be disappointed in her handling of the classified documents case, which The New York Sun cited as a possible reason for a recent "rare loss" for former President Trump on a motion his attorneys filed.

In that instance, Cannon rejected a request from Trump to push back and further delay the pre-trial motion deadline of February 22, though she did leave open the possibility of allowing extra time for filing pre-trial motions if Trump's lawyers could provide "a particularized and timely showing that events post-dating February 22, 2024, clearly justify additional pre-trial briefing."

The Sun surmised that the order against Trump could have been an attempt by Cannon to placate Smith and forestall or completely avoid his potentially consequential appeals to the 11th Circuit that could result in her reversal or removal from the case.

In an increasingly desperate denial of the reality of the 2024 Republican presidential primary, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley has steadfastly refused to drop out of the race and cede to former President Donald Trump his inevitable victory as the party's nominee.

The Trump campaign, however, confidently predicted Tuesday that "the end is near" for Haley and asserted that her campaign would be finished after Saturday when she is expected to suffer an embarrassingly decisive defeat in her home state of South Carolina, the Daily Wire reported.

The Palmetto State, where Haley previously served as governor, likely represents her best possible opportunity for a strong showing among the GOP voter base against the former president, though even on her home turf she trails Trump by around two dozen points in the polls.

Team Trump predicts Haley's campaign will end in South Carolina

On Tuesday, Trump campaign co-chairs Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles published a "memo" that declared, "Nikki Haley’s campaign ends Saturday, February 24th, fittingly, in her home state, rejected by those who know her the best."

"Of course, like any wailing loser hell-bent on an alternative reality and refusing to come to grips with her imminent political mortality, we should expect more references to Kings and Coronations -- even though the results of 5 elections overwhelmingly sent an unmistaken message: Nikki Haley doesn’t represent Republicans any more than Joe Biden does," the memo continued.

"But they both have a simple mission: attack Donald Trump and use any means necessary," the co-chairs stated. "RINO Nikki and her team have decided that it’s okay to solicit and accept money from national leftists -- and -- attempt to hijack GOP contests across the country by courting Democrats. That’s a stain that doesn’t go away."

Math shows Trump will ultimately win the GOP nomination

After citing some details of Haley's decisive losses to Trump thus far in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, the memo asserted, "We won’t bore you with the reams of data that show an ass-kicking in the making in South Carolina, but we will show you the very serious math problem Nikki Haley has. This is the diagnosis she refuses to accept: The end is near."

LaCivita and Wiles went on to describe how even with an "overly generous" and "very favorable" model for Haley that was simultaneously a "worst case" scenario for Trump for the remaining primary elections over the coming weeks, Trump was nonetheless predicted to wrap up the GOP nomination with the requisite number of state delegates between March 12-19.

That would lead to the "next step for Team Trump," which included acknowledging that Haley "is irrelevant and not newsworthy -- and unworthy of said attention;" would allow for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee to combine forces in coordinating "Convention planning, fundraising, strategy, and state party tactics;" and finally recognizing what has been known for months -- that the general election will be a rematch of the 2020 contest between Trump and President Joe Biden.

"The true 'State' of Nikki Haley’s campaign?" the memo concluded. "Broken down, out of ideas, out of gas, and completely outperformed by every measure, by Donald Trump."

Haley vows to remain in race despite massive deficit in polls

Shortly after that memo was released, according to Politico, Haley remained defiant as she delivered a "State of the Race" speech in South Carolina in which she sharply criticized the former president and insisted that she was not dropping out but rather planned on "campaigning every day until the last person votes."

However, while some would grant Haley full marks for bravery in remaining in the primary race as an alternative for Republican and independent voters -- if not also Democrats in states with "open" elections -- who don't like Trump or are worried that he will eventually succumb to his mounting legal woes, she faces an exceptionally steep climb to try to surpass the overwhelming support the former president continues to draw from voters across the country.

In South Carolina, for example, the RealClearPolling's average of primary polls shows Haley trailing Trump in her home state by more than 25 points.

The situation is even starker when the race is viewed more broadly, as RCP's average of national primary polls has Trump leading Haley by around 57 points, with the former president garnering 74.7% support compared to just 17.6% for the former ambassador and governor.

There is little doubt that first ladies hold a unique position of influence and power concerning their presidential husbands, and first lady Jill Biden is certainly no exception.

Now comes an assertion from presidential historian Douglas Brinkley that First Lady Biden, in her quest to retain "power" and exact "revenge" against her family's critics, played a "vital part" in convincing President Joe Biden to run for a second term in the White House, the Daily Wire reported.

Given the widespread public perception that Biden is too old and incapable of serving out another four-year term as president, the developing situation seems to evoke comparisons to former first lady Edith Wilson and her alleged role as the unofficial "acting" president in place of her husband, Woodrow Wilson, after he is rumored to have been incapacitated by strokes during the final year and a half of his presidency.

Other first ladies urged their husbands to not run for re-election

Presidential historian Brinkley appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday to promote his new book about former President Jimmy Carter's single term in office and was asked not only about the possibility that President Biden could also end up being a single-term president but also about the rumors that he might be replaced as the Democratic Party's nominee before November's election and the first lady's role in his re-election campaign.

"She is the vital part. Dr. Jill Biden is it," Brinkley said of the Biden 2024 campaign. "You know, if you go back to 1952, Harry Truman could have run, and he didn't. Why? Well, the Korean War and, you know, other reasons. But -- but Bess wanted to go back to Independence [Missouri] of -- you know, she didn't like it in Washington."

"If you cut to '68, Lyndon Johnson was -- quit in March of '68 and people will say because of Walter Cronkite" and his sharp criticism of Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War, the historian continued. "No. The big thing was his health was bad, he had a bad heart, he was smoking, high blood pressure, tension, and Lady Bird Johnson didn't want to stay in. And she wanted -- let's go back to Texas and convinced Johnson to step down."

Jill Biden "likes power," wants to "stay" and seek "revenge" on opponents

"So, in the Truman -- I'm giving you two -- Truman could have stayed on, and Johnson, and they both said, no, it's because their wives, their spouse, said, enough," Brinkley asserted. "That's not the case with Jill Biden. She likes power. She wants to stay. She wants some sense of revenge."

He noted how she has ensconced herself in the Washington D.C. area and observed of the rumors that Joe Biden would simply step aside for some other replacement, "And the idea of relinquishing it all after you've taken the slings and arrows of the last years of attacks, and at the last minute, just when you get all the delegates, you're going to say, 'I'm going to open it up to a bunch of people,' it's -- it's very childish when you read those kind of reports."

More apt comparison would be to Edith Wilson

Brinkley was not wrong to point out the apparent contrast between first lady Jill Biden and her predecessors like former first ladies Bess Truman and Ladybird Johnson, but some would argue that the historian would have been more accurate in drawing a comparison between Jill Biden and Edith Wilson.

According to the Washington Monthly, among numerous other sources, former President Wilson is alleged to have suffered a series of "debilitating" strokes in the fall of 1919 that "left him partially paralyzed, intellectually diminished, and often incoherent."

His second wife, whom he'd married just four years earlier, is strongly rumored to have conspired with some of Wilson's closest aides and doctor to keep the full extent of his condition hidden from the American people, the media, Congress, and his own Cabinet by serving as a sort of "gatekeeper" who, in essence, quietly ran the nation on his behalf until he left office in March 2021, when his successor, President Warren Harding, was sworn in.

To be sure, there were scandalous rumors of such even at that time, and the first lady is said to have gone to great lengths to keep the subterfuge going for nearly a year and a half, at one point even propping up her half-paralyzed husband in bed amid carefully arranged lighting so that dubious lawmakers could personally meet with him and be falsely reassured that he remained in control.

The ruse appeared to work, at least until more information was disclosed or discovered several decades later, and in light of polls that show how the overwhelming majority of Americans harbor serious concerns about President Biden's physical and mental health, it is not unreasonable for some to similarly worry that Jill Biden may prop up a debilitated and diminished president so that she can continue to hold on to power and the luxuries of life in the White House.

The various "precautions" that have been put into place for President Joe Biden's use of Air Force One are raising eyebrows. 

The precautions, according to the Washington Examinerinclude Biden's "frequent use of the shorter ladder." They also include the positioning of a Secret Service agent "at the base of the [aircraft's] stairs."

Biden has had several mishaps boarding the plane, falling on the steps on multiple occasions. Presumably, these precautions are put into place to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

The problem, however, is that Americans are concerned about Biden's mental and physical condition, and these precautions are just one more indication that old age is getting to the president.

The latest

Biden, according to the Examiner, has been using the shorter stairs to board Air Force One since at least last year.

Per the outlet, "Air Force One has two different ladders the president uses to board before flights. One is longer and allows the president to board to a higher point on the plane, while the other, with fewer steps, allows boarding to a lower point. Biden began using the shorter stairs after various trips and falls last year."

The stationing of the Secret Service agent at the bottom of the stairs, however, is a newer development that was first reported by the New York Times

The Times report, in general, highlights the various ways in which the White House has been looking to protect Biden. The outlet reports that aides "worry that even small mistakes [made by Biden] will be amplified."

The White House, in other words, is aware of the fact that voters have serious concerns about Biden's mental and physical condition, and, it, thus, is trying to find ways to hide Biden's condition from the public, in light of the fact that he is up for reelection.

"An elderly man" with "poor memory"

The Examiner reports that the newer precautions "come in the wake of special counsel Robert Hur's report."

Hur is the man who was tasked with investigating whether or not Biden unlawfully mishandled classified materials.

While Hur concluded that Biden did, in fact, mishandle classified materials, he chose not to prosecute the president, because, in his view, a jury would be unlikely to find Biden guilty.

Why? Hur reasoned that a jury would be unlikely to find Biden guilty because he is "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

This report has served only to confirm Americans' concerns about Biden's mental and physical health. Now, the White House is trying to find ways to undermine Hur's report, but, thus far, their attempts have proven to be unsuccessful.

On Friday, New York Judge Arthur Engoron ordered former President Donald Trump to pay roughly $355 million and suffer other punitive measures in the civil fraud case New York Attorney General Letitia James subjected to him.

Trump reacted to the order during a campaign rally speech in Michigan on Saturday in which he denounced the judge as a "lunatic" driven by corrupt partisan bias and personal hatred against him and his namesake business, the Washington Examiner reported.

The former president also unleashed his fury against AG James and other prosecutors who've brought criminal cases against him, including Special Counsel Jack Smith at the federal level and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Williams in Georgia.

Judge drops hammer on Trump, his sons, and his family business

NBC News reported Friday that Judge Engoron, in a 92-page decision, ordered former President Trump and the Trump Organization to pay approximately $355 million in damages to the state for purportedly manipulating the stated value of various assets in applying for bank loans or tax purposes.

According to AG James, the total owed to the state by Trump is closer to $450 million when pre-judgment interest is factored in, and in a gloating speech delivered after the decision was handed down, warned that the amount would "continue to increase every single day" with additional interest and penalties until it was paid in full.

On top of the damages due, Engoron also prohibited Trump from holding any leadership position with any business in New York state for three years, including his namesake organization, and barred him and the company from applying for any bank loans for the same period.

The judge further ordered an "independent monitor" and "independent director of compliance" be appointed and installed at the Trump Organization. And, as if that weren't enough, Engoron also ordered Trump's eldest sons, Don Jr. and Eric, to each pay more than $4 million in fines plus interest and similarly barred them from holding leadership positions in their own family business or any other entity in New York for two years.

Trump lambasts judge, prosecutors intent on harming him

"The decision yesterday in New York, you may have read about it," former President Trump told the crowd at his Michigan rally on Saturday, according to the Examiner. "He’s a crooked judge. By a radical left-wing judge, who is a lawless and unconstitutional atrocity that sets fire to our laws like no one has ever seen in this country before."

"This judge is a lunatic, and if you’ve ever watched him, and the attorney general may be worse, may be worse," he continued about AG James. "You ever watch her? 'I will get Donald Trump.' Her campaign, 'I will get Donald Trump. I promise I will get him.' She knows nothing about me, nothing about me."

Trump also took a few moments to turn his attention to Special Counsel Smith and Fulton County DA Willis, both of whom have criminally charged him for alleged interference and other crimes during and after the 2020 election.

He reiterated his oft-repeated accusation that Smith is "deranged" for seeking to criminalize his actions as the president and swiftly prosecute him ahead of November's election, and called "bulls--t" on Willis' claims of innocence against accusations that she financially benefited from a previously undisclosed romantic relationship with a special prosecutor she hired in the case.

Trump lashes out in fiery statement

"This Election Interference and tyrannical Abuse of Power by a Crooked Judge and Crooked Attorney General cannot be tolerated. My case was already won in the Appellate Division, and more than 80% of the frivolous claims were wiped out," Trump said in a statement Friday. "Yet, as I suspected, and in order to hurt me and the Republican Party politically, Crooked and Corrupt Judge Arthur Engoron ignored his loss at the Appellate Division, and came up with an outrageous $355 Million Dollar fine against me."

"There were no victims, and not one person testified there was any fraud. The actual witnesses established my Net Worth exceeded that reported in my Financial Statements as those Statements never included my most valuable Asset -- the TRUMP Brand. The Highly Respected Expert Witness said my Financial Statements were among the best he has ever seen," he continued. "I paid over $300 Million Dollars in taxes to New York City and State, and they want me gone. They are Crazed Lunatics who are destroying everything in their way. It all starts with Biden’s attacks on his Political Opponent!"

Trump added, "This shocking and corrupt Interference in the Free Markets for political gain places every New York business transaction at risk. We must make sure Corrupt Politicians and Judges cannot continue to abuse the power of their office, and violate the public trust. We have already won, and will continue the fight on appeal!"

Fueled in large part by his actions and words, there has been speculation for months that moderate retiring Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) might launch an independent or third-party presidential bid as an alternative to likely major party nominees President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

Manchin put an abrupt end to those rumors on Friday, however, when he declared decisively during a speech that he would not launch a presidential campaign in the current election cycle, Politico reported.

That undoubtedly will be heralded as great news by Democrats who were legitimately worried that an independent centrist presidential run by Manchin would result in the re-election of Trump by drawing moderate voters away from Biden who otherwise would likely support the incumbent president's bid for a second term.

Manchin teased a presidential bid for months

Politico reported that Sen. Manchin, who announced late last year that he wouldn't run for the Senate again, has spent the past two months on a nationwide tour that was intended to gauge public support for a possible moderate presidential ticket.

That tour may well have ended Friday, along with his White House ambitions, in the speech he delivered to a crowd at the University of West Virginia.

Interestingly enough, the possibility of a presidential run seemed alive and well just one day earlier when Manchin had suggested during an event in Ohio that he would likely ask fellow moderate and retiring Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who twice failed to capture the White House in 2008 and 2012, to be his running mate.

However, that same day, Utah's Deseret News reported that Romney said jokingly in response to Manchin's comments, "Well, that’s really presumptuous. I would be the president. He would be my running mate," but then added more seriously, "No, I’m not going to run for president. Certainly, I’m not running for vice president. But (Manchin is) kind to say that. We’re good friends."

Manchin now says he is not running

"I will not be seeking a third-party run. I will not be involved in a presidential run," Manchin told the audience, according to NBC News. "I will be involved in making sure that we secure a president that has the knowledge and has the passion and has the ability to bring this country together."

He suggested that while third-party or independent candidates might find more success in the future, such a bid in the current cycle would be "very challenging," and he further addressed the concerns of worried Democrats by stating that he had no desire to play the role of a "spoiler" in the likely rematch election between Presidents Biden and Trump.

"I just don’t think it’s the right time," Manchin added of an independent presidential campaign. "We’re on a real teetering situation here that could go either way. Democracy is at stake right now."

NBC News further reported that the West Virginia senator revealed in his speech that he'd just had a "very respectful" conversation with Biden earlier that day to inform him of his decision not to run, as well as spent time discussing the highly partisan nature of Congress and Washington D.C. that he had grown disgusted with.

No Labels centrist group pressing on with possible presidential ticket

Sen. Manchin had for several years been closely associated with the centrist No Labels organization and was widely regarded as the top prospect to lead a bipartisan "unity ticket" of moderate candidates the group has considered fielding in the 2024 race, according to the Associated Press.

That plan has apparently not been completely derailed by the senator's announced decision to not run for the presidency this year, at least based on a joint statement issued Friday by the organization's three co-chairs -- former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, and former NAACP head Benjamin Chavis Jr.

Their statement said, "No Labels is currently speaking with several exceptional leaders about serving on the presidential Unity ticket. We are continuing to make great progress on our ballot access efforts and will announce in the coming weeks whether we will offer our line to a Unity ticket."

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts