Special counsel Jack Smith's election interference case against former President Donald Trump may be in jeopardy thanks to the Supreme Court, Slate reported. The high court heard arguments from a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, incident at the Capitol that undermines two of the charges against Trump.
Last week, oral arguments began in Fischer v. United States. The case centers around Joseph Fischer, who was charged with obstruction of an official Congressional proceeding.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the Department of Justice was overreaching with that charge. Some believe that the court is leaning toward siding with Fischer, which would undermine Smith's case against Trump.
The prosecutor has lobbed the same charge against Trump in the election interference case. A decision in favor of the plaintiff would mean Smith could only pursue two of the four charges currently against Trump.
Court watchers believe the more conservative justices are sympathetic to Fischer's case. They are questioning whether he indeed violated Section 1552(c) of the Constitution, which would carry a penalty up to 20 years in jail.
The law states that a person who "corruptly… obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so" would be breaking the law. Justice Clarence Thomas seemed skeptical of this rationale in Fischer's case as a Jan. 6 protester.
"There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past?" Thomas pointedly asked.
Justice Neil Gorsuch similarly pointed to the pitfalls of applying the provision in the broadest sense, CNN reported. He posited whether the law would apply to situations such as someone who pulls a fire alarm to disrupt a vote in Congress as Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York infamously did.
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back on the DOJ's interpretation that ignores the statute's key ingredient, which includes evidence tampering. "You can’t just tack it on and say, 'Look at it as if it’s standing alone. Because it’s not," Roberts said.
Legal expert Jonathan Turly contends that the case against Trump's role in the so-called insurrection to overturn the 2020 election was flawed from the start. "The biggest problem for me is that the 14th Amendment, Section Three, deals with rebellion and/or insurrection," Turley told Fox News earlier this year.
"This was neither. This was a riot, and at some point, mature minds have got to kick in here and say, look, he has never even been charged with incitement, let alone rebellion and insurrection," Turley went on.
"But more importantly, putting aside the fact that he hasn't been convicted, this wasn't a rebellion or insurrection. I know that the other side has really tried hard to portray it that way, but the American people don't even view it that way," he added.
"Polls indicate that the public views this as a protest that became a riot. It doesn't excuse what happened," Turley clarified.
Smith's case against Trump is on shaky ground as it is. If the Supreme Court further chips away at the charges, Smith might find himself left only with a hollow husk of case.
In a statement to mark the Jewish Passover celebration, President Joe Biden said that Israel has an "ironclad" right to exist as an independent state, a departure from his recent attempts to pressure Israel into a cease-fire with Hamas.
“This holiday reminds us of a profound and powerful truth: that even in the face of persecution, if we hold on to faith, we shall endure and overcome,” Biden wrote. “We can never forget the horror of Hamas’ despicable atrocities.”
“My commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, the security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad,” he continued.
Biden still wants Israel to try for a cease-fire with Hamas in exchange for the release of the remaining 100 hostages held by the terrorists.
In other words, he's trying to appease the Squad and other pro-Palestinian Democrats who have been pressuring him to stop supporting Israel and force a cease-fire while still giving lip service to supporting Israel.
“My Administration is working around the clock to free the hostages, and we will not rest until we bring them home,” Biden said. “We will continue to work toward a two-state solution that provides equal security, prosperity, and enduring peace for Israelis and Palestinians.”
Despite Biden's efforts, a cease-fire does not seem likely any time soon.
In addition, the Israeli military is reported to be preparing to invade Rafah, where the hostages are likely being held and where most of the remaining high-level Hamas officials are holing up.
The message also comes as Iran tried last week to attack Israel by firing 350 rockets at Israel after Israel targeted the Iranian Embassy in Syria, killing seven officials there.
In essence, the entire Middle East is out to destroy Israel, and its main ally America is not really providing much strength.
Biden did give some talking points about anti-Semitism, but what is he doing to stop it on college campuses like Columbia, which had to go to virtual classes this week because of threats against Jewish students?
“The ancient story of persecution against Jews in the Haggadah also reminds us that we must speak out against the alarming surge of Antisemitism — in our schools, communities, and online,” he said. “Silence is complicity.”
Like most things, Biden is mostly wrong on his Israel policy.
Those that don't want him out for supporting Israel want him out for pretending he does. It's not a good look for him, but what is these days?
All eyes will be on a Manhattan courtroom this week as the hush money trial of former President Donald Trump gets underway in earnest.
According to the New York Post, there could be one unusual twist that few saw coming, given that disgraced former Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti has revealed his willingness to testify on Trump's behalf and his ongoing contact with the former president's defense team.
Once known as one of Donald Trump's most outspoken critics, Avenatti has recently revealed that he could play a role in the former president's business records case taking place in New York.
According to Avenatti, he has been in frequent touch with Trump's legal team and is prepared to testify against Daniels, whom he once represented.
Currently serving a nearly two-decade prison term in California for a host of financial fraud crimes, Avenatti told the Post, “The defense has contacted me.”
“I'd be more than happy to testify. I don't know that I will be called to testify, but I have been in touch with Trump's defense for the better part of a year,” he added.
Though he once made public calls for Trump to be criminally indicted, Avenatti has changed his take on the former president's situation in recent years, as evidenced by his eagerness now to aid in his defense.
“There's no question [Trump's trial] is politically motivated because they're concerned that he may be reelected,” Avenatti opined.
He went on, “If the defendant was anyone other than Donald Trump, this case would not have been brought at this time, and for the government to attempt to bring this case and convict him in an effort to prevent tens of millions of people from voting for him, I think it's just flat out wrong, and atrocious.”
Offering his predictions about what Trump's mounting legal troubles could mean in an electoral sense, Avenatti added, “I'm really bothered by the fact that Trump, in my view, has been targeted.”
“Four cases is just over the top and I think there's a significant chance that this is going to all backfire and is going to propel him to the White House,” he stated.
If Avenatti were to provide testimony on behalf of Trump, it would set the stage for a bizarre battle of convicted felons, given that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is expected to rely heavily on the testimony of another disgraced former lawyer, Michael Cohen, as NBC News notes.
Once an attorney working directly for Trump, Cohen has since turned on his former boss and has done prison time for admittedly lying to Congress.
Precisely how jurors might assess the credibility of these two men remains to be seen, though the widely assumed liberal-leaning nature of the panel may militate in favor of Bragg's case against Trump regardless of what is actually said from the stand.
Twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton believes former President Donald Trump wants to be an authoritarian ruler if reelected, the Daily Caller reported. Clinton took another crack at the Russia collusion hoax, saying Trump is akin to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The former Secretary of State shared her assessment of Trump on Friday on the Democracy Docket podcast. "Putin does what [Trump] would like to do," Clinton said to Marc Elias, an election attorney.
"Kill his opposition, imprison his opposition, drive journalists into exile, rule without any check or balance," Clinton said. "That’s what Trump really wants."
Clinton is trying to advance the narrative that Trump idolizes dictators such as Putin and that it somehow compromises him, essentially reimagining the Russia collusion hoax. She has to say this because, tragically, Democrats have nothing else to run on.
"We have to be very conscious of how he sees the world because, in that world, he only sees strong men leaders. He sees Putin, he sees Xi, he sees Kim Jong Un in North Korea," she said of Trump.
"Those are the people he is modeling himself after, and we’ve been down this road in our, you know, world history. We sure don’t want to go down that again," Clinton added.
She went on to reassert the since-debunked narrative that Putin targeted her 2016 presidential campaign. "[O]ne of the reasons he went after me is because he knew I would deal with him in an appropriate way, and Trump would basically do whatever he wanted; it’s really important to think about what could happen to our world with Trump back in the White House," Clinton said.
"Withdrawing us from NATO, not caring about what happens with Europe … The idea that he wants Ukraine to fail. The idea that he doesn’t want us to be able to surveil our enemies. This is a very scary prospect," she said.
Clinton smeared Trump by accusing him of using tactics she and the Democratic Party used against him. The tragic truth is that she did so without a hint of self-awareness and with the confidence that some on her side would believe it.
Trump is currently the target of four criminal prosecutions, and many believe they are politically motivated, according to Fox News. This is unprecedented and only came after he announced he would be running against President Joe Biden.
The first trial began this week in New York over alleged hush money payments. Some, like former Assistant Georgia U.S. Attorney John Malcom, see it as nothing more than Democrats' effort to silence Trump.
"In my view, the prosecution that is currently underway against former President Trump in New York City is the most overtly political of the four criminal cases pending against him," Malcom said. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg campaigned on the promise to go after Trump if elected, Malcom pointed out.
Clinton and her ilk have attacked Trump with everything in their arsenal to no avail. The only thing they have left to do is to project all of the low, dirty tricks Democrats have pulled onto Trump and hope it sticks.
Former President Donald Trump believes that U.S. funding of the war in Ukraine is necessary, Reuters reported. His statement Thursday ended speculation and was the first time the former president formalized his position.
The House of Representatives is set to vote on yet another $61 billion in aid to Ukraine to fund its war with Russia. The issue has split support within the GOP.
During the GOP primary, Trump would not share whether he thought Russia or Ukraine should win the war. However, in a post to his Truth Social, Trump spoke about the need to support Ukraine but called on the rest of Europe to chip in.
Trump rightly called out other countries for leaving the U.S. to pick up the tab for the war. "Why isn’t Europe giving more money to help Ukraine?" he began his post.
"Why is it that the United States is over $100 Billion Dollars into the Ukraine War more than Europe, and we have an Ocean between us as separation! Why can’t Europe equalize or match the money put in by the United States of America in order to help a Country in desperate need?" Trump wrote.
"As everyone agrees, Ukrainian Survival and Strength should be much more important to Europe than to us, but it is also important to us! GET MOVING EUROPE!" This chastisement came just a day after Trump met with Polish President Andrzej Duda at his New York City Trump Tower.
The pair discussed the war and Duda's plan to ask for funding through NATO. Each member nation is currently asked to contribute 2% of its GDP, and Duda suggested that be ticked up to 3%.
Notably, the Institute for the World Economy found that the U.S. provides most of the military support while European countries outpace it with humanitarian and financial aid to Ukraine, The Hill reported. If Europe wanted to match what the U.S. provided militarily, it would have to double its effort.
Although Trump's approach makes sense, it comes at a time when Republicans are deeply divided about aid to Ukraine. House Speaker Mike Johnson has attempted to separate out spending packages for Ukraine, Israel, and U.S. border security to remedy the conflict.
Instead, the move has triggered Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to threaten to once again ouster the House Speaker. She insists Johnson "owes our entire conference a meeting and if he wants to change the motion to vacate," ABC News reported.
"This has never happened in history. And it's completely wrong. He owes our conference the truth, and he owes Republicans answers. He's going to prove exactly what I've been saying correct. He is the Democrat's speaker," Green claimed.
Meanwhile, Trump worked toward a solution with Johnson which demonstrates a moderate approach from them both. "We’re looking at it right now, and they’re talking about it, and we’re thinking about making it in the form of a loan instead of just a gift," Trump said following last week's meeting.
Regardless of how compelling isolationist arguments can be, the U.S. is already in deep with its support of Ukraine. Trump is right to call on Europe and look to other solutions rather than continuing to blindly pump billions into the nation's conflict.
Several prominent Republicans are defending former President Donald Trump as jury selection began Monday in the first of four criminal trials, the Huffington Post reported. Those who are on his shortlist for vice president have remained loyal.
The trial began this week in New York as Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records over payments he made to former porn star Stormy Daniels. He allegedly paid her to keep quiet about their affair ahead of the 2016 presidential election but failed to disclose it as a campaign expense.
Trump has rightly identified this trial as an effort to keep him from winning another White House term in 2024. He pleaded not guilty and says he committed no wrongdoing.
In the face of a political prosecution, some heavy hitters on the right have taken to defending him, including many who are rumored to be on his shortlist for a vice presidential running mate, CNN reported. Meanwhile, the left continues its crusade against the former president.
On Monday, several Republicans showed their support with posts to X, formerly Twitter, as the first stages of the trial were underway. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), thought to be a likely vice presidential pick, did his part in a post Monday.
"What the radical Left is doing is not just election interference, it’s election engineering," Scott wrote. "They will try everything (and fail) to stop Donald J. Trump."
What the radical Left is doing is not just election interference, it’s election engineering.
They will try everything (and fail) to stop Donald J. Trump.
— Tim Scott (@votetimscott) April 15, 2024
Former Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders also attacked Democrats for their transparent attempt to thwart Trump's 2024 presidential bid. "The only reason New York Democrats launched the witch hunt against President Trump is because they know they can't beat him at the ballot box," Sanders posted Monday.
The only reason New York Democrats launched the witch hunt against President Trump is because they know they can't beat him at the ballot box.
— Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) April 15, 2024
While some focused on the motivations of those bringing the charges, others saw the glaring problems with the people bringing the case, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan.
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) railed against Bragg in a post to X. "What Alvin Bragg is doing to President Trump is a disgrace to the rule of law and the opposite of Justice. It's also election interference," Vance, who has expressed interest in becoming Trump's running mate, said.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) supported Trump's assertion that Merchan is "corrupt" because of his daughter's work with Democrats who use Trump's trial to fundraise. Despite this, Merchan has refused to recuse himself from the trial on several occasions.
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum called the proceedings a "sham trial" and an "unprecedented attack on" Trump while he was campaigning for president. Kari Lake, who has remained loyal for Trump and is running for U.S. Senate in Arizona, took to social media to support Trump's request to skip a day in the trial to attend son Barron Trump's graduation.
Democrats have been attempting to smear Trump with these charges, but it's clear many Republicans are sticking by him. People are tired of the ruling class rigging elections in one way or another, and big names in the GOP are ready to help stop it.
As President Joe Biden campaigns for reelection, first lady Jill Biden has left his side to tout gains in education, WGHP-TV reported. The first lady made a speech at North Carolina's Guilford Technical Community College on Monday.
It's not unusual for first ladies to use their position as a proxy in the campaign. However, Jill Biden is especially integral to the campaign as the 81-year-old president struggles to push on.
Jill Biden was joined by Democratic North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper as well as the GTCC president, Anthony Clark. The event began with students sharing their experiences at the institution.
Afterward, there was a roundtable talk "about the importance of federal, state, and local efforts to provide career-connected learning in schools." That discussion included a student from Mount Airy High School student, GTCC students, Guilford County Schools superintendent Whitney Oakley, and Randolph Community College vice president for instructional services Suzanne Rohrb.
The White House touted the first lady's experience traveling to "over 40 states and more than 100 cities" to campaign for her husband, including the trip to North Carolina. "As a life-long educator, the First Lady has been an advocate for investing in workforce training, career-connected learning programs, and pathways to good-paying jobs across the country," the White House statement said.
In reality, she has the toughest job in the world of making her husband and his agenda at all palatable. Typically, first ladies are trotted out to bolster their husbands' image. Instead, Jill Biden may be carrying all of the water for them both as the president's advanced age slows him down.
Biden has struggled with unpopularity for most of his presidency, but he's taking a fresh hit on the handling of his economy. By contrast, former President Donald Trump is more trusted on the issue, Reuters reported.
A poll conducted this month found that 41% of respondents trusted Trump on the economy, while 34% said they trusted Biden. This seven-point advantage is an improvement from the three-point difference in a poll taken in March.
Several indicators point to economic troubles, not to mention that Americans feel the bite at the grocery store and gas pump. The president and his comrades in the leftist media attempt to downplay that fact by mentioning that the inflation rate has slowed, but prices remain high. Jill Biden's presence certainly won't fix that.
Regardless of the challenges, some Democrats are pinning all of their hopes on Jill Biden's presence. The Philadelphia Inquirer called her the "key" to keeping her husband in the White House.
"Voters in focus groups we’ve done solidly feel that if he weren’t up to running, she wouldn’t have let him run. She’s a very important validator for him," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake claimed.
Michael LaRosa, Jill Biden's spokesperson, similarly spoke of her unique role. "Voters crave authenticity," LaRosa said.
"She’s your typical suburban mom and grandmother, who has a slight Philly accent when she pronounces certain words like ‘coffee.’ It’s endearing, and it’s what makes her his secret weapon," LaRosa claimed.
The president is in trouble and needs his wife to help him out of it. Instead of simply standing by his side on the campaign trail, they have Jill Biden out front so nobody will notice how incompetent and feeble her husband has become.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan will decide whether former President Donald Trump violated his gag order in a hearing on April 23, Breitbart reported. Trump allegedly made three social media posts that conflicted with terms Merchan imposed in the hush money trial.
Merchan's order was issued on March 26 and bars the former president from speaking about attorneys and witnesses involved. The case stems from payments made to former porn star Stormy Daniels around the time of his 2016 campaign to conceal an alleged affair.
Trump is allowed to speak out against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case against him. However, Trump was supposed to stay mum on anything about Merchan and his staff, and his family, as well as court staff and council, with a penalty of $1,000 for each violation.
Assistant District Attorney Chris Conroy informed the judge that the three posts were made with complete knowledge of the terms of the gag order. "We know that from various posts he had made," Conroy said.
Bragg is not only seeking momentary damages but also looking to charge Trump with contempt and put him in jail for 30 days in a motion filed Tuesday, Fox News reported. The offending posts were made on three separate occasions involving witnesses in the case.
The first post on April 10 included a repost from Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, about the gag order against Trump. "We can’t be hypocrites when it comes to the 1st Amendment," Avenatti wrote.
"It is outrageous that Cohen and Daniels can do countless TV interviews, post on social, & make $$ on bogus documentaries—all by talking sh*t about Trump—but he’s gagged and threatened with jail if he responds," the attorney said. Trump then replied, "Thank you to Michael Avenatti --for revealing the truth about two sleeze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!!"
The second post also came on April 10 and featured a photo of Daniels' 2018 statement denying she had an affair with Trump. "LOOK WHAT WAS JUST FOUND! WILL THE FAKE NEWS REPORT IT," Trump captioned a photo of her statement in the post.
The third post spoke out against Mark Pomerantz, the former Manhattan prosecutor, on April 13. Bragg took over the position and said he would not charge Trump, but Pomerantz went on to write a book about the investigation even as it was ongoing.
While Trump is campaigning for president, Bragg and his ilk are doing all they can to thwart his effort to retake the White House. Bragg slapped Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records but now has restricted how he can defend himself during the campaign.
The fines weren't enough for them as Bragg sought in Tuesday's motion to have him jailed. "This Court should warn defendant that future violations of the Court’s restrictions on his extrajudicial statements can be punished not only with additional fines, but also with a term of incarceration of up to thirty days," the motion argued.
The prosecution of a former president and current candidate is already unprecedented. However, what's more shocking is that this appears to be an effort to keep Trump quiet at a crucial time leading up to the November election.
Voters should have the freedom to decide whether Trump deserves another term as president. Instead, Trump faces four criminal trials that were all brought with suspicious timing after his November 2022 announcement that he'd be running for a second term.
The left is so singularly focused on Trump as a villain that they forget that this is not how it's supposed to work in America. Jailing the political opposition is not a good precedent to set in a free country.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) may be holding onto his leadership position by a thread, but he told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News on Sunday that presumed GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is "100%" with him as the House's leader.
Bartiromo started the conversation by asking about whether Johnson supported making Ukraine aid into a "loan" for the country rather than aid, an idea that Trump has mentioned recently.
“The former president, President Trump has talked about the possibility of turning aid for Ukraine into a loan. Is that what you’re considering?” she asked.
Johnson said, “Yes. You know, I had a great visit with him on Friday, and he and I are 100% united on these big agenda items.”
Bartiromo then addressed Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's (R-GA) frequent threats to call for a vote to vacate his speakership and what Trump thinks about that.
“Did you speak with President Trump privately about what Marjorie Taylor Greene is doing ?” she asked.
Taylor Greene is also a strong supporter of Trump, but has not let that sway her from her skepticism about Johnson.
Johnson answered, "I spent hours with the president on Friday. He and I talk frequently, many times, usually, in a week. We have a long relationship. He’s 100 percent with me. And he said, ‘We’ll get this job done.’ That’s a distraction."
Johnson made the point that Taylor Greene is hurting the party by constantly opposing the Speaker on minor issues like specific funding bills.
He said, "What Marjorie is done with a motion to vacate is not helpful for our party, for our mission to save the country. Because if we don’t grow the House majority, keep the House majority, win the Senate, and win back the White House for President Trump, we are going to lose the Republic.”
Johnson is right that the infighting among Republicans is sure to hurt the party if it continues until the election.
There has always been a small but fierce opposition to Trump from Republicans, and it will further splinter the party if even some Trump supporters continue fighting amongst themselves.
The current political polarization seems to be encouraging factions to splinter from the rest of their own party at times due to a single issue or an unrealistic notion of what a divided Congress can do.
It's a difficult position for Johnson as Speaker, but so far he seems to be making all the right moves and doing the best he can to hold the fragile Republican coalition together.
The first of Donald Trump's criminal cases is poised to go to trial starting on Monday, and according to one legal expert, there is a legal maneuver the former president may wish to consider, despite its admitted drawbacks.
According to Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley, Trump may want to give his defense lawyers the greenlight to file a frequently used motion that would significantly reduce the stakes in the so-called “hush money” case involving payments made to adult entertainer Stormy Daniels, as the network reports.
The trial involves accusations that Trump falsified company records as a means to disguise payments made to his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The lawyer in turn paid Daniels to quash claims of an alleged extramarital affair, a liaison the former president has long denied.
Turley, himself a professor at George Washington University Law School, explained the former president's potential option during a Friday appearance on Fox & Friends.
The constitutional scholar explained that Trump, though he might find the idea personally problematic, may be well advised to pursue a strategy involving the possibility of a guilty finding on a less serious offense than the top charge leveled against him.
Turley discussed “a fairly standard motion that occurs when you believe that the jury may not agree that the big-ticket item of a charge, the felonies, is proven, and you want the court to give an instruction saying you can always convict on a lesser included offense – in this case, a misdemeanor.”
In his discussion of the aforementioned strategy involving conviction on a lesser included offense, Turley added, “Now, sometimes the defense doesn't want to do that. Sometimes they just want to leave the jury with the cliff option, thinking that they don't want to go over the cliff so they'll go ahead and acquit.”
“But many times,” he added, “this works in favor of the defense.”
Noting that the former president may be reluctant to accept such a scenario, Turley went on, “For Trump, there could be personal resistance to even suggesting a possible misdemeanor conviction, but politically and legally, it would be a very significant advantage for him.”
As the trial is set to begin Monday, Trump will be forced off the campaign trail for what could be a period of weeks, a circumstance he has decried as akin to election interference.
In this case, Trump is facing 34 felony counts, which carry the possibility of four years in prison, though it is far from certain that he would ever face time behind bars if convicted, due to his lack of prior offenses.
To secure a felony conviction, prosecutors are required to demonstrate not just that Trump falsified business records, but did so with the intent to commit a second crime, which observers assume involved campaign finance and/or tax offenses, though District Attorney Alvin Bragg has yet to specify whether that is the case.
Jury selection is slated to commence on Monday but given that many legal experts believe this to be the weakest of all the cases brought against Trump over the past year, the proceedings and ultimate outcome will surely be the subject of much analysis and debate going forward.