By all accounts, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is a genuine and likable guy with an upbeat attitude and quiet demeanor -- though that hasn't translated well in his current position, as he seems to lack a commanding presence and his leadership thus far has been somewhat uninspiring.
That likely contributed to what some are calling a failed annual House GOP retreat this week, set this year in West Virginia, as less than half of the conference showed up and much of the time was spent addressing chaotic infighting instead of unifying around a common agenda, according to the Washington Examiner.
The Examiner reported that attendance at the House GOP retreat in West Virginia this year was "paltry," with only around 100 members of the 219-strong conference making an appearance, and a variety of excuses from others for not showing up.
Some of the absences were understandable, to be sure, such as the 21 Republican lawmakers -- so far -- who are leaving Congress to retire or run for another office, with an unnamed aide for one of those departing members saying the event would be a pointless and a "waste of time" for them.
Other excuses, some more plausible than others, included a desire to spend time with family or with constituents in their home district, or to attend campaign events or prepare for upcoming primary elections.
Yet, the retreat's poor attendance should not have been unexpected, as CNN reported earlier in the week that many members had already signaled their plans to not show up.
Beyond the public claims of scheduling conflicts and election-related activities, the outlet noted plenty of quiet grumbling about frustrations with leadership, the constant bickering with other members, fatigue with last year's incessant leadership chaos, and a general lack of enthusiasm.
Axios reported that a key and repeated theme of the two-day retreat were pleas by Speaker Johnson and other leaders to members to cease the infighting and stop campaigning against each other so that the conference could come together and present a united front against their Democratic opponents.
In one particular meeting, for example, an unnamed source told the outlet that Johnson "just excoriated those who are campaigning against other GOP incumbents in their districts," and added that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) "seconded what Johnson said. There's no reason to be campaigning against each other."
That was exemplified by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who skipped the retreat to instead campaign in support of outsider candidate Brandon Herrera, who is involved in a primary runoff against Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX). When asked by the Examiner why he was campaigning instead of at the retreat, a spokesperson for Gaetz replied, "House Republicans have been in a state of constant retreat. Congressman Gaetz is on the advance."
One member who was in attendance at the retreat and supported Speaker Johnson's call for an end to the "dumb" infighting and campaigning against one another was Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI), who told the Examiner, "I’m appealing and asking my colleagues to please get over themselves."
"And let’s have the focus be on winning a majority so that we can actually affect the country," he continued. "I do think that Donald Trump’s going to be the next president. Would that not be a whole hell of a lot better for him and the country if we had a Republican majority."
One unnamed senior aide suggested to the Examiner that the low attendance was reflective of the poor morale among GOP members, and said, "The only retreat that matters is the one leadership has done over the last few months to the old swamp tactics that we’ve seen for decades. Backroom process, massive uniparty spending bills, no changes to Washington business as usual."
Yet, in the view of Huizenga, that low morale might have been improved by a stronger showing at the retreat, as he explained, "It probably would have just been healthy to have people around, not in their various camps but actually trying to figure out how we’re going to make this 'family' functional," with an emphasis on "family" in quotes.
Famed Hollywood actor Pierce Brosnan, who is arguably best known for his prior portrayal of the iconic British special agent "James Bond," was in a bit of hot water for violating the rules at Yellowstone National Park last year.
On Thursday, Brosnan pleaded guilty in a federal court in Wyoming to a misdemeanor offense for walking off a marked path and standing on a fragile geothermal feature and was ordered to pay a $1,500 fine, according to Wyoming's Cowboy State Daily.
The guilty plea stemmed from a Nov. 1, 2023, visit to Yellowstone with his sons and some friends, during which he stepped off the boardwalk and posed for a picture, one of several he later posted to his Instagram account but shortly thereafter deleted, on a snow-covered geothermal feature in the Mammoth Hot Springs area of the park.
Per the Daily, Brosnan had initially pleaded not guilty in January to the federal charges of foot travel in a thermal area and violation of a closure order, but the Irish-born actor appeared to have changed his mind and agreed to a plea deal with prosecutors ahead of Thursday's hearing at the Yellowstone Justice Center in Mammoth.
The deal with prosecutors included Brosnan pleading guilty to the foot travel misdemeanor, dropping the closure violation, a $5,000 fine, two years of unsupervised probation, and a two-year ban from Yellowstone National Park.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephanie A. Hambrick accepted the deal but altered some of the terms in light of Brosnan's expressed remorse for what had occurred, and ultimately only sentenced the famous "007" actor to pay a $1,500 fine -- $500 to the U.S. Treasury and $1,000 to the Yellowstone Forever Geologic Protection Fund -- while dropping the probation and ban as unnecessary.
For his part, Brosnan, who appeared in court via Zoom, shared how "highly embarrassed and ashamed" he was over what occurred and apologized by saying, "It was a foolish, foolish, impulsive thing to do with my sons. I wasn’t fully aware then, but I am absolutely 100% aware now."
He went on to explain that he had been "so engrossed with the beauty of the landscape" that he didn't notice the warning signs against wandering off the boardwalk path, and insisted, "If I had known or seen that sign, I never would have done it."
USA Today reported that at the time of the incident, Brosnan had been in neighboring Montana to film an as-yet-unreleased movie titled "The Unholy Trinity" co-starring Samuel L. Jackson and David Arquette.
The outlet further noted that Brosnan posted a public apology to his Instagram account that said, "As an environmentalist I have the utmost respect for and love of our natural world."
"However, I made an impulsive mistake -- one that I do not take lightly -- when entering a thermal area covered in snow in Yellowstone National Park to take a photograph," he continued. "I did not see a 'No Trespassing' sign posted that warned of danger nor did I hike in the immediate area."
"I deeply regret my transgression and offer my heartfelt apologies to all for trespassing in this sensitive area. Yellowstone and all our National Parks are to be cared for and preserved for all to enjoy," Brosnan added along with the hashtag "#StayOnThePath."
A Justice Department press release noted that the National Park Service "reminds Yellowstone visitors that the ground in thermal areas is fragile and thin, and scalding water is just below the surface. Therefore, trespassing on thermal features is dangerous and can harm delicate natural resources within the park. Additionally, the park was established primarily to protect these hydrothermal areas. NPS encourages visitors to exercise extreme caution around thermal features by staying on boardwalks and trails."
Courthouse News reported that the warnings of danger are there for a reason, as at least 20 people have been killed over the years, and countless more seriously injured, by falling in or even just being too close to any of the roughly 10,000-plus geothermal features in the park like geysers, hot springs, and pools that reach boilingly hot temperatures.
Former President Donald Trump is facing criminal prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith over his alleged unlawful retention of classified documents after he left the White House in January 2021.
Yet, in a Wednesday interview, Trump insisted that he "legally" retained the classified documents in his possession under the authority of the Presidential Records Act and "wasn't hiding them" from federal investigators, Breitbart reported.
Trump also highlighted the substantial disparity in treatment between himself and President Joe Biden, in that he is being aggressively prosecuted for keeping classified documents while Biden, who was also found to possess without authorization numerous classified documents from his time as vice president and senator, is not facing any criminal charges.
"I was dealing with them. We were dealing fine. And then all of a sudden they raided this house. They raided Mar-a-Lago. These are corrupt people," former President Trump told Newsmax host Greg Kelly during an interview Wednesday in his South Florida resort residence.
"But they release Biden. What Biden did, he wasn’t protected by the Presidential Records [Act] because he wasn’t president. He took them when he was a senator," Trump continued.
As reported last month by NBC News, Biden was found to have numerous classified documents dating from his time as a senator and vice president, which he had no authority to keep, that were stored in several different unsecured locations, including the garage of his Delaware home and an unused office space in Washington D.C., among other places.
However, following an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Hur, it was determined that even though Biden "willfully retained and disclosed classified materials" to others without authorization, which "present serious risks to national security," he would not face criminal charges due to the belief that a D.C. jury would feel sympathetic toward the "elderly man with a poor memory" and refuse to convict him.
"There’s something going on because they’re going after me viciously," Trump told Kelly in the Newsmax interview, per Mediaite. "Then all of a sudden it comes out that Biden took 10 times the number of documents that I did."
"And I took them very legally and I wasn’t hiding them. We had boxes on the front of the -- and a lot of those boxes had clothing and a lot," he continued about his leaving the White House. "We’re moving out, ok? Unfortunately, we’re moving out of the White House. And because we’re moving out of the White House, our country’s going to hell."
"But we weren’t hiding anything," Trump said, per Breitbart. "He was, and then you see him in with his Corvette. Nobody ever mentions the one though that’s the worst, is he had them in Chinatown, and those were boxes that were used. If you take a look at those boxes, those boxes were -- there was a lot of activity in those boxes, they show pictures of them. These were boxes that were used.
"In Mar-a-Lago, we had the Secret Service, we had all sorts of security. We had everything. And what he did was far more egregious," the former president stated. "I mean, I had protection, I had the right to do it -- in my opinion, and my lawyers' opinion and everything else."
"But when you see the way they released him, and they say we're gonna release him, it was egregious what he did," Trump said while also mentioning how his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton similarly dodged accountability for her own scandalous retention and destruction of classified materials on an unauthorized and improperly secured private email server.
"So, when I look at this, Greg, I say there's gotta be something. You know, it's very interesting when they were going after me viciously, raiding my house, everything else -- because Jack Smith is an animal," Trump told Kelly, according to Mediaite. "He's a total animal. He's a -- he's deranged. He really is, he's a deranged person."
"The other gentleman," Special Counsel Hur, "who went after Biden, it was a weird kind of a conclusion because he said he's competent to be president but he's not competent to stand trial," Trump concluded. "That's sort of a strange thing. I don't think people are going to buy that very much, because certainly it'll be used during the campaign."
The presiding judge in former President Donald Trump's upcoming New York criminal trial instructed Trump's attorneys to notify the court and prosecutors if they intended to use an "advice-of-counsel" defense against the felony business record falsification charges.
On Tuesday, Trump's attorneys did exactly that by asserting that Trump shouldn't be held accountable for the alleged falsification of business records since his attorneys at that time were involved in the matter that led to the criminal charges, according to the Washington Examiner.
Separately, the former president's lawyers also, for the first time in this case, raised the claim of presidential immunity from prosecution and requested that the trial, scheduled to commence on March 25, be indefinitely delayed until after the Supreme Court settled the outstanding immunity claim, where oral arguments are scheduled for late April and a decision should be rendered at some point in June.
In a three-page notice filed on Tuesday, former President Trump's attorneys wrote, "At the outset, we emphasize that there is a marked difference between the commonly referred to 'advice-of-counsel' defense and the defense that President Trump expects to raise at trial -- part of which will be that President Trump lacked the requisite intent to commit the conduct charged in the Indictment because of his awareness that various lawyers were involved in the underlying conduct giving rise to the charges."
"President Trump intends to elicit these facts from witnesses, including former AMI executives and Michael Cohen, whom we expect will testify about President Trump’s awareness of counsel’s involvement in the charged conduct," the filing continued, but noted, "This is not a formal advice-of-counsel defense."
The filing further proceeded to specify that "While President Trump intends to elicit evidence concerning the presence, involvement and advice of lawyers in relevant events giving rise to the charges in the Indictment," he did not intend to raise a formal "advice-of-counsel" defense and the various disclosure requirements such a defense would entail.
"Accordingly, there is no privilege waiver requiring production of communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, and there is no basis for the People to demand a preview of our defenses at trial," the attorneys wrote.
Additionally, a footnote further clarified that Trump's planned defense at trial could change and was dependent upon the outcome of several pending motions as well as who the prosecution ultimately called as witnesses during the trial and what those witnesses had to say.
The Examiner reported that just a few days earlier, on Thursday, former President Trump's attorneys filed a 26-page motion that raised for the first time in the New York criminal case the claim that Trump was protected by presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts while he was in office.
As was noted in other cases in which the immunity argument has already been made, Trump's attorneys wrote, "Without immunity from criminal prosecution based on official acts, the President’s political opponents will seek to influence and control his or her decisions via de facto extortion or blackmail with the threat, explicit or implicit, of indictment by a future, hostile Administration, for acts that do not warrant any such prosecution."
"This threat will hang like a millstone around every future President’s neck, distorting Presidential decisionmaking, undermining the President’s independence, and clouding the President’s ability 'to deal fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office,'" they added.
Given that and other arguments in support of the existence of presidential immunity, the motion requested that the case be "adjourned" or temporarily delayed until after the Supreme Court issued its decision on the immunity question.
It is unclear at this point how presiding Judge Juan Merchan, who hasn't been particularly favorably disposed to former President Trump in the past, will react to and rule on these filings and requests.
Trump is facing dozens of felony criminal charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for allegedly falsifying business records to cover up his reimbursement of former personal attorney Michael Cohen's "hush money" payments to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier.
There appears to still be hard feelings among some New Hampshire Democrats after President Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee dissed the Granite State in this year's presidential primary cycle.
That includes former State House Speaker Steve Shurtleff (D-NH), who recently indicated that while he has forgiven Biden and the DNC, the overt slight of his state will never be forgotten, the Washington Examiner reported.
Biden and the DNC decided last year to alter the Democratic primary schedule for explicitly racial reasons and attempted to push predominately white New Hampshire, where Biden performed poorly in 2020, out of its traditional first-in-the-nation spot in favor of the more diverse South Carolina, whose large black population helped Biden win the 2020 nomination.
In a Monday interview with Fox News, former Speaker Shurtleff indicated that while he was likely to vote for President Biden's re-election in November over former President Donald Trump, he was still displeased with how Biden and the DNC had handled the New Hampshire primary election.
"I forgive, but I haven’t forgotten how New Hampshire was treated," Shurtleff, a longtime Biden supporter, told the outlet.
For nearly a century, and as required by state law for the past half-century, New Hampshire has been the first state to hold its primary elections.
As such, when the DNC altered the primary schedule at Biden's suggestion to place South Carolina first and pushed New Hampshire back on the calendar, the Granite State refused to comply and proceeded with its first-in-the-nation election despite threats of consequences and repercussions from the Democratic Party's apparatus.
President Biden ultimately won the New Hampshire primary even though his name did not appear on the ballot and he never once campaigned in the state during the current election cycle.
That victory was due to a successful write-in campaign by grassroots activists backed by some local Democratic leaders -- an effort that former Speaker Shurtleff was not involved in.
Instead, according to a November 2023 report from the Concord Monitor, Shurtleff endorsed and campaigned on behalf of longshot candidate Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN), a move that was "90%" due to Biden and the DNC dissing the Granite State with the altered primary schedule.
Shurtleff said at that time, "I’m so proud of our primary. We take it very seriously," and added, "I was very upset with what the president tried to do."
Rep. Phillips has since ended his futile campaign to supplant President Biden as the Democratic nominee, and it now seems all but certain that Biden will face former President Trump in November in a rematch of the 2020 election -- a prospective face-off that Trump currently leads in the national polls.
With that in mind, former Speaker Shurtleff told Fox News, "We’ve got to move on, and we’ve got an election coming up, and I’m concerned about the Trump candidacy, so I’ll most likely be voting for Joe Biden," and added, "In a comparison between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, it scares me to think what would happen to our country under another Trump presidency."
The outlet also noted that Biden, who had not visited New Hampshire since April 2022, finally returned to the Granite State on Monday for a campaign event in which he highlighted his purported accomplishments and urged voters to re-elect him to another term in the White House.
Leftist Actor Robert De Niro - a frequent critic of former President Donald Trump - is worried that Trump is going to come looking for him if Trump wins the general election later this year.
De Niro made the confession during an appearance Friday on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.
Take a look:
Robert De Niro saying that Trump is a dictator who is going to round up Hollywood liberals like Maher and himself:
"If he wins the election, you won't be on the show anymore. He will come looking for me. There'll be things that happen that none of us can imagine. That what… pic.twitter.com/5Gz3kHowwq— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) March 9, 2024
During his HBO appearance, De Niro made several claims about what he believes would happen if Trump were to be reelected to the U.S.. presidency.
"If he wins the election, you won’t be on the show anymore. He’ll come looking for me. There’ll be things that happen that none of us can imagine," a paranoid-sounding De Niro said.
The actor went on to claim that a Trump victory would be a "nightmare" for America, and he, accordingly, called upon everyone to vote for President Joe Biden.
"We wanna live in a world that we want to live in and enjoy living in, or live in a nightmare? Vote for Trump and you’ll get the nightmare, vote for Biden and we’ll be back to normalcy," De Niro said.
He added, "I just don’t want to feel the way I did the many months after the election in 2016, where we couldn’t believe that it happened."
This is how De Niro described Trump. The actor also referred to the former president as "a sociopath."
If you know anything about De Niro, then none of this will come as a surprise. Trump usually just ignores De Niro and others of De Niro's ilk. But, the former president did decide to target De Niro with a social media post that Trump released in December.
"Robert De Niro, whose acting talents have greatly diminished, with his reputation now shot, must even use a teleprompter for his foul and disgusting language, so disrespectful to our Country," Trump wrote.
He continued, "He has become unwatchable both in movies, and with the FOOLS that destroyed the Academy Awards, bringing them from one of the top shows in the Country to a Low Rated afterthought. De Niro should focus on his life, which is a mess, rather than the lives of others. He has become a total loser, as the World watches, waits, and laughs!"
We'll leave it to you, the reader, to decide what's more accurate - De Niro's assessment of Trump or Trump's assessment of De Niro.
In a surprising turn of events, former President Donald Trump has launched a bold accusation against Special Counsel Jack Smith and President Joe Biden, claiming a direct link between the White House and the prosecution cases against him.
Trump alleges that recent court filings by Jack Smith admit to the Special Counsel acting under directions from Biden, intensifying the former President's narrative of a politically motivated pursuit.
On a notable Saturday, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to announce that Jack Smith, the Special Counsel involved in prosecuting two criminal cases against him, had made a significant concession. According to Trump, Smith's recent court filings revealed that he operates under the guidance and supervision of the Attorney General, which Trump interprets as a direct line to President Biden himself.
This accusation is not an isolated incident but part of a continuing narrative by Trump. He has consistently argued that President Biden is orchestrating not only the federal criminal and civil cases against him but also seemingly unrelated local lawsuits. Trump's claims aim to paint a picture of a broad conspiracy led by the current administration to undermine his legal standing and political future.
Trump's statement on Truth Social highlighted the notion that Jack Smith's acknowledgment of being under the "direction and supervision" of the Attorney General effectively proves Biden's control over the prosecutions. This interpretation by Trump seeks to challenge the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the legal processes involved in his cases.
Further fueling the fire, Trump alleged that Attorney General Merrick Garland is acting on Biden's orders to prosecute him, framing it as an attempt to interfere with the 2024 Election. Trump's accusations extend beyond mere legal disagreements, suggesting a deep-seated belief in a misuse of power for political ends. He described this situation as the "Greatest Threat to Democracy in the History of our Country," urging Biden to cease what he views as unfounded prosecutions.
Trump's portrayal of the events raises questions about the nature and implications of the alleged admission by Jack Smith. However, clarity on the specific court filing in question remains elusive, as efforts to find the document or its contents in public records or news stories have yet to yield results. This ambiguity adds another layer of intrigue to Trump's claims, leaving the public and media to speculate on the details and accuracy of his statements.
In his own words, Trump detailed on Truth Social how Jack Smith's supposed admission aligns with what he believes the American public already suspects - that his legal challenges are being orchestrated by the Biden Administration. This claim, aimed at discrediting the legitimacy of the Special Counsel's efforts, also seeks to rally support by framing Trump as the victim of political persecution.
Trump further elaborated, accusing Garland of executing Biden's orders to not only prosecute him but to also interfere in the upcoming election. He emphasized the unprecedented nature of such actions, framing them as a blatant misuse of presidential power against a political opponent in an election year.
The gravity of Trump's allegations cannot be understated. By describing the situation as the "Greatest Threat to Democracy in the History of our Country," he not only challenges the legal proceedings but also the foundational principles of the American justice system. Trump's call for Biden to halt the "Ridiculous and Democracy Destroying Prosecutions" is a dramatic appeal to public and political sentiment, aimed at shifting the narrative in his favor.
The ongoing saga of Trump's legal battles and his accusations against the Biden Administration illustrates a complex interplay between law, politics, and public opinion. Trump's strategy appears to be aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the prosecutions by framing them as politically motivated attacks orchestrated by his opponents.
As the story unfolds, the implications of Trump's accusations extend beyond the courtroom, potentially influencing public perception and the political landscape. The assertion that the legal actions against him are part of a broader effort to undermine his political viability speaks to the polarized nature of American politics today.
In a dramatic turn of events, special counsel Jack Smith has vehemently countered former President Donald Trump's claims in the ongoing criminal case regarding classified documents.
Jack Smith submitted court filings rebutting Trump's defense of selective prosecution and outlined Trump's intentional withholding of sensitive classified materials.
The heart of the controversy lies in Trump's alleged removal of classified national security documents from the White House, storing them at his Florida resort. This act has sparked a legal battle where the integrity of handling classified materials is scrutinized.
Trump's defense claimed he was the victim of "selective and vindictive prosecution," drawing parallels to figures like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, James Comey, and Mike Pence. However, Smith's filings argue that Trump's case is markedly different due to the nature and intention behind the retention of the documents.
Smith's argument emphasizes that, unlike others who may have unintentionally kept confidential documents, Trump's actions were of a deliberate nature, intentionally retaining vast amounts of classified materials even against orders to return them.
This case takes a unique turn as it is alleged that Trump employed tactics of delay and concealment, only returning a fraction of the documents when it was discovered he had taken more than 100 with secret markings.
Further complicating Trump's defense is the accusation of devising a plan to obstruct the criminal investigation, which reportedly involved attempts to engage his attorney in hiding or destroying documents. This bold strategy highlights the lengths to which Trump allegedly went to prevent the return of the classified materials.
Smith's filings dismantle Trump's comparison to the Clinton email case, noting that despite Clinton being investigated for using a private server for classified information, she was not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence for intentional misconduct.
In stark contrast, Trump is accused of not only knowingly possessing secret documents but also intentionally withholding them, which Smith argues is a clear distinction from any past cases involving the mishandling of classified information.
Adding to Trump's legal woes, Smith utilized Trump's own past statements against him, particularly Trump's criticism of Clinton's handling of classified documents during the 2016 campaign. Trump's assertions that "We cannot have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘confidential’ or ‘secret,’” now seem to echo back at him in a twist of irony.
Smith's refutation of Trump's claim of immunity under the Presidential Records Act further complicates Trump's defense. The Act does not absolve Trump of his actions, as the classified documents in question were not personal but related to national security, thus falling outside the scope of the Act's protection.
The seriousness of the allegations against Trump is underscored by Smith's detailed refutation of Trump's defenses. The focus on Trump's intentional actions and efforts to obstruct the investigation set this case apart from others involving the mishandling of classified documents.
Smith's comprehensive argument makes it clear that Trump's situation is not comparable to other instances of mishandled classified information. The special counsel's filings aim to demonstrate the deliberate nature of Trump's misconduct, contrasting it sharply with accidental or negligent cases.
The legal battle unfolds as Smith brings to light the deliberate efforts made to conceal the truth and obstruct justice. The magnitude of the classified materials involved and the alleged actions to prevent their lawful return pose significant legal and national security concerns.
Trump's defense, challenged by Smith's detailed counterarguments, faces an uphill battle in proving the former president's innocence. The distinction drawn between Trump's actions and those of other political figures emphasizes the uniqueness of this case in the annals of classified information mishandling.
In conclusion, Jack Smith's court filings meticulously counter Donald Trump's claims of selective prosecution by highlighting the intentional withholding of sensitive classified materials, a deliberate scheme to obstruct the investigation, and the misuse of the Presidential Records Act as a defense. This legal battle not only scrutinizes Trump's actions but also sets a precedent for how classified information is handled by high-ranking officials, underscoring the paramount importance of national security above personal interests.
The Alabama Supreme Court sparked controversy nationwide just two weeks ago when it ruled that, for the state's wrongful death of a minor liability law, frozen embryos created as part of the in-vitro fertilization process counted as unborn human babies.
That ruling prompted several IVF clinics in the state to cease services for fear of potential future liability claims, but the negative effects of the court ruling were just seemingly addressed and overturned by the swift actions of the Republican-controlled Alabama Legislature, Breitbart reported.
Within days, both legislative chambers passed, and the governor immediately signed, a bill that provides immunity to IVF clinics against civil and criminal liability claims.
Alabama's 1819 News reported that the state's House and Senate both swiftly approved by wide margins the bill that seeks to correct the problems that arose following the Alabama Supreme Court's recent ruling on IVF and liability for the death or destruction of frozen embryos.
The new law, which took effect immediately after Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed the bill Wednesday evening, provides both civil and criminal immunity from liability to IVF clinics in the state for any damages or death caused to a frozen embryo.
In addition, the law allows for compensatory damages to be sought against the manufacturers of items used in the IVF process, though not criminal charges, as well as transporters of frozen embryos, and sets a scale for the price of compensatory damages based on the IVF cycle.
To be sure, despite passing both chambers by wide margins, not everybody was happy with the bill, and several Republican legislators spoke out in opposition to the measure, with some arguing that it set a bad precedent while others claimed it exposed hypocrisy among supposed pro-life members who insist life begins at conception and also put a price on human lives.
That said, other Republicans defended the legislation as being inherently pro-life, in that it will protect clinics that help otherwise infertile couples have more children, and suggested that some of the sticking points, such as the issue of full personhood for frozen embryos, could be addressed by future legislation or constitutional amendments.
After she signed the bill into law, Gov. Ivey said in a statement, "The overwhelming support of SB159 from the Alabama Legislature proves what we have been saying: Alabama works to foster a culture of life, and that certainly includes IVF. I am pleased to sign this important, short-term measure into law so that couples in Alabama hoping and praying to be parents can grow their families through IVF."
"IVF is a complex issue, no doubt, and I anticipate there will be more work to come, but right now, I am confident that this legislation will provide the assurances our IVF clinics need and will lead them to resume services immediately," she continued.
After thanking the lawmakers who pushed the bill to passage so quickly, Ivey added, "Make no mistake about it, though, in the coming days, weeks and months, particularly as we are in the heat of a national election, we will hear a lot of political rhetoric around IVF. Let me say clearly: Alabama supports growing families through IVF. From protecting the unborn to supporting IVF, Alabama is proud we are a pro-life, pro-family state."
In a statement posted to his X account, Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter (R) said, "Two weeks ago, the future of IVF in Alabama was in danger. A bill that protects our IVF clinics has now been signed into law -- five legislative days later. I couldn’t be prouder of how the House and Senate came together and passed a pro-life bill for the people of Alabama."
In remarks to an 1819 News reporter, Ledbetter told the outlet, "This is probably as much of a pro-life piece of legislation that we've ever passed," and added, "I commend each and every one of these men and women that's standing with me and around me because of the way that they treated this issue and the way that things are moving forward."
As for why some of the more thorny related issues weren't addressed in the bill, such as embryonic personhood, the Speaker explained that they were left out because more discussion was needed and "We didn't want to act too quick and cause more disruption than what we should."
Special Counsel Jack Smith has been trying to hurry along the process of his federal prosecutions against former President Donald Trump, and while Smith hasn't ever explicitly mentioned the 2024 presidential election in November, it is abundantly clear to observers across the ideological spectrum that Smith wants to see Trump prosecuted, convicted, and perhaps even sentenced before voters cast their ballots.
That would likely constitute election interference, and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a staunch Trump ally, just called upon the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate whether Smith has violated a DOJ prohibition against prosecutorial actions that interfere in elections, The Hill reported.
The claim from Gaetz echoes the longstanding and oft-repeated complaint from Trump that Smith and the DOJ, at the bidding of President Joe Biden, are attempting to interfere on behalf of Biden in the upcoming election with an intent to prevent him, the likely Republican nominee, from winning that contest and returning to the presidency.
"The witch hunt against President Trump by Attorney General Garland and Special Counsel Smith is a partisan exercise, and the American people know it," Rep. Gaetz said in a statement on Wednesday that announced the filing of a formal complaint about Special Counsel Smith with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
"The actions of the Special Counsel Smith to speed up the trial against President Trump violate the DOJ’s rules and the law," the Florida congressman added. "His public comments and his office’s briefs before the Supreme Court demonstrate that he has no reason for his actions other than to unlawfully interfere in the 2024 presidential election."
The Hill acknowledged that Smith has on several occasions urged rapidity by the courts -- including district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court -- in handling various pre-trial motions and appeals intending to avoid any further delays in the trials he seeks to commence against former President Trump.
Indeed, the 2020 election-related prosecution of Trump was initially scheduled to begin this week but has been indefinitely delayed while the Supreme Court considers Trump's claim of presidential immunity. Meanwhile, the classified documents case is tentatively scheduled to begin in May, but will also likely be delayed for an indefinite period due to the complexity of the case and for a variety of other reasons.
In his letter to DOJ IG Horowitz, Rep. Gaetz noted that the "election season" is already in full swing and asserted that Special Counsel Smith's actions and words appeared to violate a DOJ rule that prohibits certain prosecutorial actions that might interfere with an upcoming election.
That DOJ rule, which applies to Smith the same as any other federal prosecutor, states: "Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose, is inconsistent with the Department's mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution."
As just one example of the alleged violation, Gaetz pointed to Smith's recent brief filed with the Supreme Court that urged a "rapid" review of former President Trump's immunity claim and cited a great "public importance" of a swift conclusion to the matter, albeit without directly explaining why such haste was necessary.
"Were there a legitimate, non-election related purpose for this request, these attorneys, who have filed in appeals courts many times, would have listed such," Gaetz wrote. "Since charges have been filed and the defendant himself is taking a legal position on timing and lodging various appeals, that justification cannot, for example, be the rights of the defendant under the Constitution or Speedy Trial Act."
"So, there can be only one conclusion: Special Counsel Jack Smith sees it as of paramount importance to hold a trial before the November 2024 election, but he is unable to explicitly say so, as such a justification is in violation of Departmental policy and law," the congressman asserted.
Rep. Gaetz proceeded to note how even Trump-hating legal analysts had called out Special Counsel Smith's overt but unstated rush to prosecute former President Trump before November's election as an apparent violation of the DOJ's election interference rule and reminded IG Horowitz of his "statutory mission" to investigate this and other alleged violations of DOJ policies and regulations.
"The precise scope of an investigation may be as narrow as interviewing the Special Counsel, and determining that he has a lawful purpose in seeking the expediting of his case against Donald Trump, and determining that he did not have the purpose of keying a trial date to the election calendar. Or it may be wider," Gaetz's letter concluded. "Please alert my office of any developments in this matter."