A California man who threatened to physically harm former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), as well as Homeland Security Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas, has now been dealt with by the nation's federal justice system.
David Allen Carrier, 44, was ordered by a judge on Wednesday to serve 11 months in prison for the threatening voicemails he left for the two federal officials, according to The Hill.
Once that prison sentence has been completed, Carrier will also be required to serve three years of supervised release and abide by certain other conditions imposed by the court during that time.
According to a Justice Department press release, Carrier first called then-Speaker Pelosi's office on Jan. 21, 2021, just two weeks after the Capitol riot, and left a voicemail threatening physical assault against the congresswoman.
More than a year and a half later, the man similarly called a special hotline for the Department of Homeland Security and again left a voicemail message that threatened physical assault against Sec. Mayorkas.
Carrier was eventually indicted by a federal grand jury in September 2023 and was charged with two counts of violating the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B).
That statute reads: "Whoever --threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b)."
Subsection (b) of the statute specifies in the relevant part that "A threat made in violation of this section shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or both, except that imprisonment for a threatened assault shall not exceed 6 years."
Likely because Carrier pleaded guilty to the two charges against him in December, not to mention his admission that his threats were intended to interfere with the "official duties" of the two threatened officials, he appears to have received a far more lenient sentence from Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup than the statute allowed for.
The judge chose not to impose any fine on the defendant and only ordered him to serve 11 months in prison when the maximum sentence could have been as many as six years behind bars.
As for the three years of supervised release after the prison sentence was completed, that included a requirement that Carrier receive treatment for mental health and substance abuse, as well as to have no contact whatsoever with former Speaker Pelosi or Sec. Mayorkas, among other conditions.
"Participating in the public political conversation is an important right for all citizens," U.S. Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey said in the DOJ release. "Nevertheless, threatening our public servants is not protected by the First Amendment and corrodes our ability to engage in peaceful and important public discourse. This Office will not tolerate behavior that crosses the line to criminal threats."
FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert Tripp said in a statement, "Violent threats targeting elected officials also threaten our democratic system," and added, "Today's sentence demonstrates that anyone who sends politically motivated threats of violence to government officials will be investigated by the FBI and held accountable."
The U.S. Secret Service was also involved in investigating Carrier's threats, and Special Agent in Charge Shawn Bradstreet stated in the press release, "We take threats against a U.S. Secret Service protectee very seriously. This is a great example of the coordination and partnership between the U.S. Secret Service, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California to investigate and prosecute threats against our nation’s leaders."
Following a suspected terrorist attack in Russia's capital city of Moscow, other nations across Europe have stepped up their security measures in case there are additional planned attacks soon.
That includes France, which prompted the U.S. Embassy in Paris to issue a security alert to all American citizens living in that nation to similarly be on guard against possible attacks, Fox News reported.
The embassy has not ordered any evacuations, at least as of yet, though that could be a possibility if a more concrete threat of terrorism soon emerges.
On Monday, the U.S. Mission to France issued a security alert that stated, "Following the March 22 terrorist attack in Moscow, Russia, the French government elevated its Vigipirate national security alert system to the highest level."
"As a result, residents and visitors throughout France may see heightened security in public areas, including airports; public transport; places of worship; tourist sites; schools; major sports venues; and large commercial centers," the alert continued.
"French authorities actively monitor terrorist threats from organized groups and radicalized individuals," the message further stated. "Attacks may happen with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, major sporting and cultural events, and other public areas that attract large numbers of civilians.
"Visitors to congested and popular tourist areas should be particularly attentive to their surroundings," the alert concluded along with encouragement for people to "report any suspicious activity to law enforcement authorities."
It further advised American travelers and residents in France to "Avoid demonstrations and areas with significant police activity; Exercise caution if in the vicinity of large gatherings or protests; Monitor local media for updates; Be aware of your surroundings; Keep a low profile; and notify friends and family of your safety."
According to USA Today, intelligence agencies for both France and the U.S. have publicly accused an offshoot of the Islamic State group of being responsible -- and that group has claimed responsibility -- for a mass shooting attack at a concert hall near Moscow in Russia. At least four gunmen carrying rifles opened fire on civilians, reportedly killing at least 137 people and leaving around 180 more wounded.
French President Emmanuel Macron, while speaking with reporters during a trip to French Guiana in South America, said, "The information available to us … as well as to our main partners, indicates indeed that it was an entity of the Islamic State which instigated this attack."
Using the initials ISIS-K for the Islamic State-Khorasan group based in Afghanistan, the French president added, "This group also tried to commit several actions on our own soil" and noted that France on Sunday had raised its terror alert warning to its highest level for the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, as France and the U.S. blamed the attack on the Islamic State group affiliate, which itself has claimed responsibility, USA Today reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin has, perhaps unsurprisingly, accused its bitter enemy Ukraine -- and by extension the U.S. and other Western allies -- of being the real planners of the deadly mass shooting attack.
Ukraine and the U.S. have, of course, strenuously denied that accusation and President Macron also addressed it when he told reporters, "I think that it would be both cynical and counterproductive for Russia itself and the security of its citizens to use this context to try and turn it against Ukraine."
The four alleged gunmen, who were quickly apprehended after the attack by Russian authorities while ostensibly fleeing toward Ukraine, have since made their initial appearances in a Moscow courtroom -- where they all looked as though they'd been badly beaten or tortured while in custody -- and were hit with terrorism charges.
Though unlikely, former President Donald Trump faces the possibility of being sentenced to serve hundreds of years in prison if convicted on all or most of the several dozen charges in the four separate criminal indictments brought against him by Democratic prosecutors at the federal and state levels.
A recent poll found that a majority of Americans believe that President Joe Biden is behind the multiple indictments against his political rival and is relying on the prospect of Trump's imprisonment to secure victory in his bid for re-election in November's election, Breitbart reported.
The poll results are nothing short of damning for Biden and lend further credence to the increasingly widespread view among Americans that the nation's supposedly neutral and non-partisan justice system has been thoroughly politicized and weaponized on behalf of the Democratic Party against its Republican opposition.
Between March 9-14, the McLaughlin & Associates polling firm surveyed 1,000 likely voters and asked a range of questions that pertained to the multiple criminal indictments against former President Trump, including how they pertained to current President Biden.
"President Trump has been indicted on a total of 91 counts by supporters of Joe Biden and his Justice Department," the pollsters asked. "If convicted of these charges, do you think that Joe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by putting him in jail?"
A majority of 56% replied with "Yes" to that question, while just 30% said "No" and another 14% either didn't know or refused to respond.
Interestingly enough, that 56% included half of independents, a plurality of moderates, a majority of Hispanics, and was evenly split among black voters. It also included a plurality of single voters and a majority among married voters, voters of all age brackets, both men and women voters, and voters who live in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
The McLaughlin & Associates pollsters also found that a majority of voters, 52-38%, believe the indictments against former President Trump by President Biden's Justice Department are intended to stop Trump from running for the presidency again.
Likewise, by a margin of 58-34%, voters believe that Biden's DOJ should "stop targeting" Trump and "interfering" in the upcoming election, while another solid majority, 56-31%, believe there is an evident "double standard" at Biden's DOJ that results in harsh treatment for Republicans and "sweetheart deals" for Democrats accused of various alleged crimes.
The pollsters further found that, by a 67-27% margin, politics played a role in the multiple indictments against Trump, and similarly by a margin of 58-33%, voters believe that Biden himself has played a role in bringing those criminal indictments against his chief political rival.
Axios reported in August 2023 that former President Trump faced significant "legal peril" as he faced 91 total counts in four separate criminal indictments that threatened to land him behind bars for a substantial period of years even if he was only convicted of a handful of those several dozen charges.
At the state level, those cases include 34 counts of alleged falsification of business records brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in New York, as well as 13 various counts in an alleged 2020 election-related racketeering conspiracy brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia.
At the federal level, Special Counsel Jack Smith has lodged two criminal indictments against Trump, the first in Florida that includes at least 40 counts related to his alleged retention of classified documents after leaving the White House, and the second in Washington D.C. that includes four counts related to the 2020 election and Jan. 6 Capitol riot of 2021.
Meanwhile, and whether despite or because of the mounting legal troubles for Trump brought by Democratic prosecutors who are aligned with Biden, RealClearPolling's average of general election polls continues to show Trump with a lead over Biden -- a lead that, with some brief exceptions and variations, the former has maintained over the latter ever since the indictments began to be unveiled beginning in April 2023.
Ronna McDaniel - the former head of the Republican National Committee (RNC) - will no longer be appearing on MSNBC.
This comes just days after NBC News announced that it was hiring McDaniel as a political analyst for both NBC News and MSNBC.
It appears, however, that MSNBC employees threw a temper tantrum after this announcement was made. Chuck Todd, in particular, had an on-air meltdown in which he attacked NBC for hiring McDaniel.
And, now, it appears that, in response to this temper tantrum, NBC has decided that it will no longer be using McDaniel as a political analyst on MSNBC.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Rashida Jones, the president of MSNBC, has told employees that MSNBC will not be using McDaniel as a political analyst.
The Journal reports, "MSNBC has no plans to have former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on the cable network, its president told employees following the news of her hiring at NBC News."
The Journal goes on to report that Jones did so "to address internal backlash in the wake of an internal Friday announcement by NBC News regarding McDaniel's hiring as an on-air contributor."
The outlet further reports that "a number of MSNBC anchors and producers have voiced concern internally about McDaniel's ties to former President Donald Trump and the RNC's role in his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results."
THIS JUST IN: The WSJ reports that Rashida Jones, the president of MSNBC, is telling MSNBCers that the cable network has no plans to use Ronna McDaniel on air.https://t.co/pGFgXinlFX pic.twitter.com/GoK9NKga8D
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) March 24, 2024
Despite of all this, McDaniel did make her debut as a political analyst on NBC News on Sunday, March 25, 2024.
The big question was whether McDaniel would support former President Donald Trump or whether she would give the network talking points against Trump. The answer appears to be more of the latter than the former.
McDaniel, for example, condemned Trump's call for some of those Jan. 6, 2021, protestors who have been convicted of crimes to be pardoned. She also said that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election "fair and square."
None of this will really come as that much of a surprise to conservatives. There, after all, was a good reason why McDaniel - the niece of anti-Trump Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) - was, essentially, forced out of her leadership position at the RNC and why Trump has since installed allies in that leadership position.
Nonetheless, many continue to be extremely critical of NBC for its hiring of McDaniel, and some are threatening to boycott NBC as a result. Trump has to be sitting back and enjoying all of this, although, at the time of this writing, he has yet to comment on the situation.
Peter Angelos, the longtime owner of Major League Baseball's (MLB) Baltimore Orioles, has died at the age of 94.
Angelos's death was announced by his family on Saturday, March 23, 2024. The family released a statement, which has been published on social media on the Orioles' official account.
A statement from the Angelos family: pic.twitter.com/vRtrc4Y6Gq
— Baltimore Orioles (@Orioles) March 23, 2024
The family, in its statement, wrote, "Today, Peter G. Angelos passed away quietly at the age of 94."
The family went on to reveal that "Mr. Angelos had been ill for several years." The family then thanked those "doctors, nurses, and caregivers who brought comfort to [Angelos] in his final years."
And, the family concluded, "It was Mr. Angelos' wish to have a private burial, and the family asks for understanding as they honor that request. Donations may be sent to charity in lieu of flowers."
Angelos is most well known for two things: his ownership of the Orioles and his very successful law practice.
"Born on the Fourth of July in 1929 and raised in Maryland by Greek immigrants, Peter Angelos rose from a blue-collar background to launch a firm in his own name after receiving his law degree from the University of Baltimore in 1961," NBC News reports.
The outlet continues, "In August 1993, Angelos led a group of investors that bought the Orioles. The group included writer Tom Clancy, filmmaker Barry Levinson, and tennis star Pam Shriver. The price tag of $173 million — at the time the highest for a sports franchise — came in a sale forced by the bankruptcy of then-owner Eli Jacobs."
Angelos continued to practice law, after purchasing the team, and he is particularly known for going up against tobacco giant Philip Morris and for advocating on behalf of asbestos victims. Angelos also continued to play an active role with the Orioles up until recent times.
Currently, Angelos' son, John, is selling the Orioles to a group that includes David Rubenstein, the Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein.
Brandon Scott, the mayor of Baltimore has released a statement in which he praised Angelos for all that he has done for the city of Baltimore.
"Peter Angelos was a true Baltimorean. His impact on Baltimore & Baltimoreans will live for generations," Scott wrote.
He added, " Thank you, Peter, for never giving up on and always believing in our city! Our thoughts and prayers are with the entire Angelos family & @Orioles organization today."
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are getting ready to hear a controversial case regarding pills that are used to carry out abortions.
Fox News reports that the justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on Tuesday, March 26, 2024.
"Oral arguments are scheduled for Tuesday with a ruling expected about three months later, with the race for the next president in full swing," the outlet reports.
Fox describes the case as one with "high stakes," noting that the justices ruling could have "enormous legal, social, and political implications."
The reader will likely remember that the justices, not too long ago, overturned the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, returning the controversial abortion issue back to the American people and their state legislatures. The case that the justices will hear on Tuesday is a different kind of abortion case.
The case - FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine - has to do with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) removal of safety restrictions for the abortion pill mifepristone.
The lawsuit has been brought against the U.S. government by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Erik Baptist, one of the group's senior counselors, recently put out a statement on the matter.
"]I]n recent years, the FDA has recklessly removed nearly every safeguard the agency previously considered necessary for abortion drugs, including in-person doctor visits to check for ectopic pregnancies, severe bleeding, and life-threatening infections," he said.
Baptist added, "Without question, the FDA’s actions made taking high-risk abortion drugs less safe for women.
The overarching issue in the case is whether the federal government's approval process for mifepristone was proper. The Biden administration says that it was, while ADF says otherwise.
The judges at the lower court levels agreed with ADF, according to Fox, finding that "the FDA did not fully consider the potential health risks to women when amending guidelines for mifepristone eight years ago."
These lower court rulings stopped the FDA from distributing mifepristone without the safety protocols that the ADF says ought to be required.
This is the decision that the Biden administration has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The importance of this case cannot be understated. Fox reports:
New data from the Guttmacher Institute research group indicates nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023 rely on mifepristone. Abortion rights groups say the drug has been proven safe and that the court's decision could negatively impact 40 million women nationwide.
Georgia's Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, despite facing the real threat of disqualification and removal from her 2020 election-related criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump and others, is reportedly pressing forward with the case as if that risk didn't exist.
In fact, it was reported that Willis remains insistent that the trial begins before the November elections and is set to ask the presiding judge over the case to schedule a start date, perhaps as soon as this summer, according to the Washington Examiner.
Her bold effort to get the prosecution of the former president and his co-defendants back on track follows a two-month delay in which her previously undisclosed inappropriate romantic relationship, from which she may have improperly financially benefited, with now-former Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade took center stage instead of the criminal racketeering charges against Trump.
CNN, citing at least three unnamed sources in DA Willis' camp, reported that Willis has seemingly looked past multiple potential obstacles to her continued prosecution of former President Trump and plans to soon as presiding Judge Scott McAfee to schedule a trial start ahead of November's election.
Willis had initially requested a trial start date in August, and since McAfee has not yet set that or any other date for the trial, she is expected to reiterate that same request. The sources further shared that Willis has claimed that she needs only 30 days to finish her final preparations before a trial, and has argued that the defense teams ought to be ready to go soon as well since they've had since September to make their own pre-trial preparations.
The outlet's sources also acknowledged that the past two months have been "damaging" to Willis and the DA's office in multiple regards, though they also seemingly dismissed it as little more than a "distraction" that is now largely behind them.
"Basically, this is a two-month sideshow that the judge should have not even let happen," one unnamed source told CNN. "But it’s over and the judge finally came to the right decision … and so now we’re back to where we never should have left, which is these people were under felony indictment. Let’s get a trial date."
Yet, while DA Willis and her allies may believe that the "two-month sideshow" is now "over," that isn't entirely true, as the anti-Trump prosecutor still faces a possibility of being disqualified and removed from the case by the Georgia Court of Appeals.
The Hill reported Wednesday that Judge McAfee granted a request from former President Trump and other co-defendants for a "Certificate of Immediate Review" that would allow for an appeal of his recent decision to allow Willis to remain on the case, provided that Wade resigns from his position as special prosecutor, which he did that same day.
However, despite the pending appeal of his prior decision, McAfee signaled his own intention to keep moving forward in the case, as he wrote in Wednesday's brief order, "The Court intends to continue addressing the many other unrelated pending pretrial motions, regardless of whether the petition is granted within 45 days of filing, and even if any subsequent appeal is expedited by the appellate court."
One of Trump's attorneys, Steve Sadow, said McAfee's approval of an appeal was "highly significant," given that "It means the defense is permitted to apply to the Georgia Court of Appeals for pretrial review of the Judge’s order refusing to dismiss the case or disqualify Fulton County DA Willis."
"The defense is optimistic that appellate review will lead to the case being dismissed and the DA being disqualified," he added.
According to CNN, that planned appeal from the defendants is just one of several "hurdles" DA Willis faces in getting her prosecution of former President Trump back on track, not the least of which includes her substantially damaged credibility for delivering untruthful testimony that has rendered her "politically vulnerable" as she seeks re-election in November.
Willis is also facing an ongoing investigation by Georgia Republicans over her alleged improprieties and possible subpoenas from a state Senate committee; an investigation and possible sanctions by a newly empowered state commission; new primary challengers against her re-election bid; and an eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Trump's immunity claim, which should come in June and, if in Trump's favor, would likely pull the rug out from underneath her entire effort to convict and imprison the former president.
Many Americans suspect that the Biden administration's lax enforcement of border security and immigration laws is deliberate, and while there may be some truth to that, new information raises the possibility that simple incompetence may also be a factor.
It was recently revealed that around 200,000 deportation cases were summarily dismissed by federal immigration judges over the past few years due to the failure of administration officials to file the necessary paperwork in those cases, according to the Daily Wire.
Such errors -- whether deliberate or because of incompetence -- and the subsequent case dismissals generally result in the migrants, typically seeking to claim asylum, being free to remain in the country illegally without the worry of deportation, albeit also in a sort of "legal limbo" that prevents them from obtaining any sort of adjudication or federal benefits or work permits.
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, an academic group affiliated with Syracuse University, reported this week that "Approximately 200,000 deportation cases have been thrown out by Immigration Judges since the start of the Biden administration because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) hadn’t filed the required Notice to Appear (NTA) with the Court by the time of the scheduled hearing."
TRAC noted that this raised "serious concerns," given that "Without a proper filing, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and the immigrants, often asylum seekers, lack a way to move their case forward."
Typically, when a migrant illegally enters the country and is apprehended and processed by immigration officials, they are given a Notice to Appear in a specific immigration court on a specific date for an asylum and/or deportation hearing, and that NTA is then also formally filed with the immigration court system for scheduling purposes on the docket.
At least, that is how it worked until 2021, shortly after President Joe Biden took office, when the total number and percentage of cases dismissals due to the lack of an NTA on file began to skyrocket, ultimately peaking in 2022 before declining the following year and now returning to closer to traditional levels, though still elevated above prior standards.
Indeed, around 1% of cases, roughly 500 or so, were dismissed per month in 2020, but that figure shot up to around 10%, or nearly 3,000 cases per month, in 2021. At the same time, illegal immigration overall was also surging, which resulted in 2022's dismissals equally nearly 7,000 cases per month, still around 10%, then dropping to approximately 6,000 dismissals per month in 2023 and, thus far in 2024, just over 2,000 per month, with the monthly percentage plummeting back down to just below 2%.
The TRAC report went on to point out that the dismissal numbers linked to a lack of NTAs on file varied significantly in the many immigration courts around the country, though the organization was unable to explain why that might be.
The group also highlighted the problems this issue posed for not just migrants seeking adjudication of their asylum claims, but also the immigration courts themselves, as the cases that end up dismissed contribute to the backlog of cases the limited number of immigration judges face and waste valuable time that could otherwise be spent actually adjudicating valid cases.
"This report provides an incomplete picture. Troubling is the almost total lack of transparency on where and why these DHS failures occurred," TRAC concluded. "Equally troubling is the lack of solid information on what happened to these many immigrants when DHS never rectified its failure by reissuing and filing new NTAs to restart their Court cases."
Perhaps coincidentally, this stunning report has emerged just about one week after the just as shocking revelation that President Biden's Justice Department had issued a "gag order" on immigration judges and the union that represents them -- one that prohibits them from speaking publicly about anything related to their jobs without first obtaining DOJ approval.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), likely due to his affinity for government employee whistleblowers, has sounded the alarm over the so-called "gag order" on immigration judges and, in addition to his concerns about their free speech being unconstitutionally stifled, has also noted that it inappropriately limits the ability of Congress to conduct effective oversight of the immigration court system.
It sure seems like the Biden administration has attempted to silence overworked immigration judges to prevent them from publicly exposing what is actually happening at the border and in immigration courts, and as Grassley stated in a recent letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, "If the allegations that the Justice Department has sought to silence immigration judges from communicating with and testifying before Congress are true and accurate, the Biden Justice Department’s conduct is absolutely unacceptable."
Former President Donald Trump has often complained that Democrats have "weaponized" the nation's justice system against him for overtly partisan purposes, including to not just prevent him from serving a second term in the White House but also bankrupt and imprison him and obliterate his real estate empire and legacy as a businessman.
According to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, Trump has now been proven "right" in such claims by the "pile-on" of multiple "improvisational" criminal indictments and civil lawsuits brought by Democrats for political reasons, the Daily Caller reported.
Those observations from Professor Turley came during a Monday discussion with Fox Business host Larry Kudlow about the recent reports that former President Trump was having trouble coming up with the nearly half-billion dollars necessary to post bond and proceed with an appeal of the absurdly biased ruling from the judge who oversaw the New York civil fraud trial.
"It’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny that we have a legal system now that is being heavily distorted by politics and you cannot look at all of these cases and see blind justice, you see the opposite," Turley said. "You see a justice that is being weaponized, and in many ways, the Democrats fulfill the narrative of President Trump. He is now right."
"No matter what they thought about it at the beginning, they proved him to be right with this pile-on from Florida to Georgia, to Washington, D.C., to New York and most of the public gets it," he continued.
Last year, Trump was criminally indicted in New York by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over alleged falsification of business records, was twice indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith over his retention of classified documents and alleged efforts to interfere in the 2020 election, and was similarly indicted in Georgia on election-related racketeering charges by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, to say nothing of several additional civil suits and defamation claims.
Turley went on to tell Kudlow, "The reason all of these cases are having problems is in part because they are improvisational. I mean, what Bragg’s doing has not been done in the past, what James did has not happened before and that is creating a series of novel issues and I think the public can see that as well."
"Now, will he have a trial before the election? It’s possible but with this pile-on, it may be becoming increasingly irrelevant to voters," he continued. "I think they have so damaged the image of the legal system both in the federal and state process, that many voters no longer trust these cases or these courts."
"I mean we have to wait to see if New York still has a judge or two that’s willing to say enough," Turley added. "When you are forcing someone to come up with half a billion dollars just to get an appeal? Someone has to say enough. This is not what New York is supposed to be."
Separately, in a post to his blog, Turley wrote Monday about the "odor of mendacity" emanating out of Democrat-run courtrooms across the country, which reeks of "not just selective prosecution but political bias in our legal system. It is becoming harder to deny the existence of a two-track system of justice in the country as commentators and even a few courts raise concerns over the role of politics in prosecutions."
"For years, conservatives have objected that there is a two-tier system of justice in this country. I have long resisted such claims, but it has become increasingly difficult to deny the obvious selective prosecution in a variety of recent cases and opinions," he noted at one point. "I have long stated that the charges against Trump over documents at Mar-a-Lago are strong and based on established precedent. However, the recent decision of Special Counsel Robert Hur not to bring criminal charges against President Joe Biden has undermined even that case."
"In New York, the legislature changed the statute of limitations to allow Trump to be sued while New York Attorney General Letitia James effectively ran on a pledge of selectively prosecuting him. She never specified any particular crime, just promising to bag Trump," Turley said at another point. "Ultimately, James used a law in an unprecedented way to secure an absurd penalty of roughly half a billion dollars, even though no one lost a dime because of the Trump loans."
Likewise, "Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has also come up with an unprecedented way of using a state law to effectively prosecute Trump for a federal offense that the Justice Department has already rejected."
After sharing a few more examples of biased and selective prosecutions, including a federal judge calling out the disparate treatment of Jan. 6 protesters versus those aligned with Antifa or other leftist groups, Turley concluded, "These and other cases have fulfilled Trump’s narrative about a politically weaponized legal system. The fact is that many in cities like New York are thrilled by selective prosecution and biased sentencing decisions directed at locally unpopular figures," while everyone else in America recoils from the stench of such dishonest partisanship in a purportedly neutral justice system.
Former President Donald Trump's criminal trial in New York on falsification of business records charges is slated to begin next month after a temporary delay, and how that eventual trial will play out is beginning to take shape.
Presiding Judge Juan Merchan issued two separate orders that included his decisions on a host of pre-trial motions submitted by both the defense and prosecutors, and the overwhelming majority of those decisions were in favor of the prosecutors, according to The Hill.
The bulk of those motions from both sides dealt with could and could not be submitted as evidence during the trial, and it was clear from Merchan's rulings that Trump will face a decided disadvantage in that regard.
Judge Merchan first issued a nine-page order to address former President Trump's motions, the first of which asked to preclude the testimony of former personal attorney Michael Cohen, the prosecution's star witness, on account of his lengthy documented history of being a dishonest perjurer.
That motion was denied as the judge preposterously claimed that there was no evidence Cohen had ever lied about the matter at hand -- the alleged falsification of business records to cover up payments to Cohen in 2017 that reimbursed him for making "hush money" payments in 2016 to silence individuals with "salacious" claims against Trump.
Merchan also denied motions that sought to preclude arguments from the prosecution that the alleged payments improperly influenced the 2016 election, that those payments included an "element of intent to defraud," and any alleged evidence of a broader "catch-and-kill scheme" to keep embarrassing stories hidden from the public.
Trump did win a partial victory in terms of a split decision from the judge on his request to preclude testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, and former Trump Tower doorman Dino Sajudin -- all of whom were allegedly paid to remain silent about their "salacious" claims against Trump. Those three individuals will be allowed to testify, but their testimony will be limited by the court.
Finally, Merchan denied Trump's request to exclude the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape from evidence, arguments from the prosecution about federal campaign finance laws, the records of the media organization allegedly involved in the "catch-and-kill scheme," Trump's ties to the Trump Organization, and Trump's own prior statements that prosecutors intend to use against him.
Following that almost entirely one-sided order denying former President Trump's motions, Judge Merchan issued a 13-page order in which he did nearly the exact opposite and granted virtually all of the requests made by the prosecution.
That includes strictly limiting the testimony of Trump's "expert" witness on campaign finance laws and prohibiting Trump from arguing that he shouldn't be prosecuted because both the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department declined to charge him for similar alleged campaign finance violations.
"That the FEC dismissed the complaint against Defendant and the DOJ decided against prosecuting Defendant for potential FECA violations are probative of nothing. These matters are therefore irrelevant and Defendant is precluded from eliciting testimony or introducing evidence about both," Merchan wrote. "There are countless reasons why the FEC and DOJ could have decided not to pursue enforcement against Defendant, all having nothing to do with whether he is guilty of the charges here against him."
The judge also noted that, per prosecutors' requests, he would strictly limit Trump's ability to argue that he is the victim of selective prosecution or government misconduct, and likewise granted a motion to exclude any defense arguments or evidence showing Cohen's lack of credibility in the view of federal prosecutors.
He further granted motions from the prosecutors that would preclude Trump from raising certain defense arguments related to "advice of counsel" during the trial, as well as other arguments Trump previously intended to raise but had been previously ruled against by the judge.
Finally, Merchan reserved judgment on a motion from prosecutors to submit alleged evidence of other "bad acts" by Trump against other alleged victims, and signaled that he would render a decision on multiple points raised in that motion once he had an opportunity to more thoroughly review what prosecutors intended to submit.