This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden took to a podium right away on Tuesday after word of the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.

There a critical support structure had been hit and knocked down by an out-of-control container ship.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A constitutional expert is noting that it's unlikely that Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor Fani Willis can win her latest argument in her campaign to get President Donald Trump.

Because she's fighting her own statements.

Willis hired a paramour, Nathan Wade, and paid him nearly $700,000 to assemble an organized crime case against Trump over comments following that 2020 election.

Then she essentially was put on trial over allegations her misbehavior included conflicts of interest because of her relationship with Wade while the case was being assembled.

Cell phone records show him traveling to her neighborhood late at night multiple times, and then leaving early in the morning.

A judge ruled that, despite his finding there was the appearance of a conflict, she could stay on the case if she fired Wade, so he submitted a resignation letter immediately.

Now it is George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as a constitutional expert but has represented members in court, who pointed out Willis' obstacle.

He cited her claims over the weekend to CNN that a "train is coming" for Trump.

"On this occasion, CNND can be excused for not having an opposing view. Willis circa 2020 denounced Willis circa 2024," he explained.

Willis claimed, "I don’t feel like my reputation needs to be reclaimed. I guess my greatest crime is I had a relationship with a man, that’s not something I find embarrassing in any way. And I know that I have not done anything that’s illegal."

But it was Willis herself who "repeatedly declared that she would not have any romantic relationship with those in her office," Turley wrote.

"Willis ran against her former boss Paul Howard, who was embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal involving his relationship with women in his office. Willis offered both experience and ethical leadership, including pledging repeatedly that 'I will certainly not be choosing to date people that work under me.'"

She explained her exception for Wade, however, saying that Wade was "special" because even though she hired, supervised and controlled his work, he was "not really part of the office," Turley wrote.

And while she claimed to have done nothing "illegal," Turley noted, she failed to comment on the questionable ethics she used.

"Moreover, it may be too early to tell if she is entirely free of criminal allegations. Many believe that both she and Wade gave knowingly false or misleading testimony. That is a problem not just for them as individuals but for the office in this case," Turley noted.

The irony, he noted, is that, "Willis and Wade were both prosecuting people for the very same conduct of filing false statements with courts and making false statements."

Turley noted that there may be "another train" that is coming "for Willis."

WND has reported Alan Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter professor-emeritus at Harvard, has written at the Gatestone Institute that Judge Scott McAfee's "split-the-difference opinion makes absolutely no sense legally or factually."

His ruling was that which ordered either Willis or Wade off the case.

"It is obvious that Judge McAfee started his decision-making process by deciding the result he wanted: disqualifying special prosecutor Nathan Wade, but retaining Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her entire office. In order to reach that bizarre result, he had to rely on the testimony of Willis, which he knew was totally untruthful," Dershowitz wrote.

"Yes, he made an express finding that there are 'reasonable questions' about whether the district attorney and her hand-selected lead special assistant district attorney testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship. In general, he found that 'an odor of mendacity remains.' Yet, after making those devastating findings about the dishonesty of Willis, he said he believed her testimony rejecting financial gain. He found that it was 'not so incredible as to be inherently unbelievable.'"

But the famed lawyer pointed out, "Any reasonable person, however, watching her contrived testimony along with that of her former lover, could not reasonably conclude that they were telling the truth. It seems completely clear that she benefited financially from appointing Wade and then going on numerous trips, which records prove he paid for. Her testimony that she paid him back in cash was 'unbelievable' to any objective viewer."

The lawyer noted Georgia rules ban a district attorney from accepting any "financial benefits from anybody she hires. She knew that, and she also knew that someday she might be asked to prove that she paid her former lover back, yet she maintained no records of her alleged payments: no bank withdrawals, no photographs of the money she allegedly paid, not even notations in her calendar. No jury would believe that Willis in fact paid him back."

And, he noted, no reasonable jury would believe Willis "did not commit perjury when she swore that her sexual relationship with Wade began after she hired him rather than before."

He said evidence discounted that possibility.

And, he wondered, why has no criminal perjury investigation been opened.

"Judge McAfee expressly found that there was an appearance of conflict. There is also an obvious appearance of impropriety and injustice. That should be enough to disqualify a prosecutor. He also found that he had the power under Georgia law to disqualify Willis based on this appearance."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A commentary published in the Washington Examiner warns that New York Attorney General Leticia James and a judge there, Arthur Engoron, are turning America into a "3rd World" country with their attack on President Donald Trump.

They have worked together to come up with a $450 million penalty for Trump and his business through an archaic fraud law – despite the fact there were no complaints against Trump, no one lost any money, all the loans were repaid, and the factors involved essentially included routine real estate deal procedures.

"The biggest casualty of this grotesque abuse of prosecutorial power will be America. We are losing the one thing that separates us from Third World countries: equal justice under the law," explained Elizabeth Stauffer, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation Academy and a contributor to multiple publications.

She pointed out that James repeatedly has threatened that if Trump cannot pay the fine plus interest, she will move to seize his New York assets.

Trump currently has a timetable to post a huge bond by next week should he want to appeal, a bond that has been called prohibitively high.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new report from the Washington Examiner reveals how Joe Biden maneuvered to work around a ruling from the Supreme Court that he didn't like. And possibly benefit his 2024 campaign for a second term at the same time.

That court decision said his plan that could influence voters, soon choosing whether he will or will not get a second term in office, by "forgiving" some $400 billion in student loan debt, was unconstitutional.

He had campaigned on a promise to "fix" a broken student loan program and promised to attempt "every tool at my disposal to cancel those debts."

In reality, the debts were not canceled at all; Biden simply was transferring the indebtedness from the borrowers, often now wealth lawyers and bankers, to taxpayers to might never have had their chance to attend an elite university.

He wanted to move more than $400 billion in debt to taxpayers using the HEROES Act of 2003, which was written with Iraq War veterans in mind.

The Supreme Court ruled that was not constitutional, so Biden reached into his bag of "tools" and within days had announced the transfer of debt from some students to taxpayers using the Higher Education Act of 1965.

That allows, "In the performance of, and to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary [of Education] may enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however, acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption."

Biden just this week announced he was giving to taxpayers the debts of another 78,000 public sector workers, totaling about $6 billion. His program launch had started just days after the Supreme Court ruling with a decision to transfer the debt of 804,000 borrowers, totaling $39 billion, to taxpayers.

Biden's transfer of debts from students to taxpayers now has totaled some $144 billion.

The Examiner reported, "Biden is sending out emails with his name and signature to anyone whose debt is getting canceled, letting them know who’s responsible. The moves have outraged conservatives who say it is illegal, fails to address the root issue of high college costs, and is a net wealth transfer from those who didn’t go to college to relatively well-off people who did."

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said in the report, "I want President Biden to answer this question: How does transferring student loan debt improve the federal student loan system? The answer is it doesn’t."

Critics have openly described Biden's actions as a "vote-buying scheme," in an election year in which his approval ratings are plunging, his economy is costing American families thousands a month, and he's behind President Donald Trump in most of the more recent polling.

"Ever since the Supreme Court put a stop to Biden’s illegal mass loan forgiveness, he has taken a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ approach to foisting as much debt as possible onto the federal taxpayer to buy votes," Defense of Freedom Institute spokeswoman Angela L. Morabito said.

The report pointed out, however, that no major lawsuits have yet been assembled to challenge Biden's latest spending spree.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Despite Democrat claims that recent elections in America have been the "cleanest" ever, there undoubtedly has been cheating.

Whether it's the FBI's interference in the 2020 election through orders to suppress bad news about the Biden family's international dealings revealed in an abandoned laptop, or the undue influence of the $400 million plus that Mark Zuckerberg handed out to elections officials who largely recruited Joe Biden voters with it.

That's on top of the rules changes, sometimes in violation of state law, adopted during COVID that allowed for drop boxes, ballot collecting, and absentee voting virtually without limits.

There even is a poll that shows the elites in America, the top 1%, who often are Democrats, would rather cheat in an election and win, illegally, than lose honestly.

At least 69% of what the poll described as the politically obsessed elite fall into that very category.

So a report that documents how President Donald Trump is ahead of Joe Biden in all seven swing states could be seen as an indicator of a coming election in which cheating may play a role.

The report said, "Trump leads Biden by 4% in Arizona, 1% in Michigan, 3% in Nevada, and 3% in Wisconsin, according to four polls released Wednesday and Thursday by Emerson College Polling/The Hill."

The report said, "Trump leads Biden by 4% in Arizona, 1% in Michigan, 3% in Nevada, and 3% in Wisconsin, according to four polls released Wednesday and Thursday by Emerson College Polling/The Hill."

Further, the report shows Trump ahead of Biden by 3% in North Carolina and 4% in Georgia. "according to polls released Wednesday by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion."

And Emerson College's survey from just days earlier shows Trump ahead of Biden by 4% in Pennsylvania.

The election, of course, still is months off.

And, the report said, the numbers are assessments without factoring third-party candidates, such as Robert F. Kennedy.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court soon is to consider a challenge to one count that prosecutors have used repeatedly against Jan. 6 defendants, some of whom never even entered the U.S. Capitol the day of that 2021 riot, and some who were not even in Washington.

WND has reported that an appeals court has found that judges blundered in possibly hundreds of those cases by using a special procedure to enhance their sentences.

It was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that said the lower courts' decisions to claim repeatedly that the defendants, some of whom were charged for entering the Capitol building through open doors, some of whom actually rioted, were interfering with the "administration of justice" were wrong.

Many of those people were there to object to the certification of Joe Biden as president following the 2020 election, which evidence now confirms was suspect.

For example, never before in American elections had a sum of money like the $400 million plus that Mark Zuckerberg handed out to elections officials been an influence. And that money was entirely outside the ordinary campaign funding programs that are monitored.

Further, the FBI interfered by telling media corporations to suppress accurate reporting about Biden family scandals revealed in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden. A subsequent polling showed had those details been routinely reported, enough voters would have withdrawn their support for Biden so that he almost assuredly would have lost to President Trump.

Essentially, the sentences included extra penalties for interfering with the "administration of justice" when that was not applicable.

If the Supreme Court agrees, it could affect hundreds of cases.

But now a report at The Gateway Pundit explains that a prosecutor plans to retaliate against defendants if the high court gives them a break.

That prosecutor, Matthew Graves, "threatened to seek more prison time for the J6ers if the Supreme Court reverses the obstruction statute this summer," the report said.

"Graves, the D.C. U.S. attorney who is now arresting and charging thousands of non-violent J6ers who didn’t even enter the Capitol building, is now threatening to seek more prison time for J6 defendants if the Supreme Court reverses the obstruction count," the report documented.

"Indeed, at any resentencing, the court could apply an upward departure for 'significant disruption of a governmental function' …" he said.

"Per investigative reporter Julie Kelly: If the Supreme Court reverses the statute and jailed J6ers ask for release, the DOJ will respond with a request for consecutive sentences and enhancements," the report said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

With a presidential administration well-known to have been compromised by foreign adversaries – especially China – is America on the brink of disaster?

WND asked that question to Brigadier Gen. Blaine "Blaino" Holt, USAF-Ret., who served as the deputy U.S. military representative to NATO and is co-founder of the nonprofit Restore Liberty.

Holt fears the worst under President Joe Biden’s leadership, saying the evidence of betrayal is undeniable. "It's not statistically possible for an administration to make 100 percent of its decisions counter to United States interests without some other factor at play."

"If Americans want to know what that factor is," said Holt, "start watching what Congressman Comer is doing in his oversight committee."

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. And according to Holt, "Every single day, he is peeling back the onion on the Chinese compromise of this administration."

Thus, in a March 14 press release, Comer announced "a government-wide investigation into the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) ongoing efforts to target, influence, and infiltrate every sector and community in the United States, including but not limited to America’s education, agriculture, critical infrastructure, research, energy, business, space, and technology sectors."

"In every area," Holt stressed, "the Chinese are not only making deals favorable to the Chinese and their interests but also to second and third-order interests." These include Russia and Iran, he explained. "And if you look through that prism, things start to explain themselves."

"For example, we're not going to take Iran to task on anything, because we'd be messing with China's oil supplier," Holt told WND. "That’s why we're doing nothing more than throwing rocks at the [Iranian-backed] Houthis instead of just ending them." Thus, explains Holt, Chinese interests are being protected.

"We also have a wide-open southern border that compromises American security," he added. "Fentanyl is killing the country, but once again, it's the Chinese alliance with the cartels that makes China off limits."

"When you look at these incompetencies or malevolencies, is this administration doing anything that's not helpful to Chinese interests?" Holt asked. "The only saving grace we have is that the Chinese regime seems to be coming down under its own weight economically."

"But their own problems won't change their long-term strategic goals, regardless of what's happening domestically for them," he said. "They still have Russia, Iran, and North Korea continuing to be a menace to the world while they plot to destroy America as we know it."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The arguments before the Supreme Court this week over a case challenging the Biden administration's collusion with tech companies to censor the ideas and messages that he doesn't like has revealed one justice holding a stunning perspective.

She's worried that the First Amendment, which was written to hamstring the government from censoring ideas, messages, and speech, hamstrings the government's agenda to censor ideas, messages, and speech.

"My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important periods," Ketanji Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, told lawyers representing plaintiffs who sued over the censorship scheme that involved the Biden administration working with tech companies to silence some information.

She continued, "And so I guess some might say that the government has to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information."

The issue arose during the COVID-19 pandemic, the lethal virus that most likely emerged from a Chinese lab that was experimenting on how to make viruses more lethal and more transmissible.

It killed millions around the globe.

However, there were multiple controversies over government-mandated shots and alternative treatments. The Biden administration worked to suppress any criticism of the shots, which have since proven to have triggered hundreds of thousands of cases of side effects that ranged up to death.

Further, it demanded the suppression of alternative treatments that have proven in many cases to be effective.

Jackson told lawyers representing those whose ideas were censored: "So can you help me? Because I'm really – I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems."

A report at Fox News reported, "Social media users were shocked and slightly bemused" at her perspective on the First Amendment, which specifically bans the government from censoring ideas and speech.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court heard arguments about a Biden regime agenda to push, using the influence of the federal government, and social media companies to censor ideas and comments that the administration dislikes.

And Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which brought the dispute to the court system, said it's just not allowed under the Constitution for politicians to pick "disfavored" statements and order them suppressed.

"Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis. We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive," Younes said.

A ruling in the case isn't expected from the court for some time, but it likely will have a massive impact on the concept of free speech and the First Amendment across America.

The trial court judge likened the government's scheming in the case to the Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" that propagated nothing but lies.

Many of the details of that ruling were affirmed by an appeals court, but the government, insisting on the right to determine the information to which people have access, took it to the Supreme Court.

Much of the censorship at the time concerned the COVID-19 pandemic and the experimental shots that were developed and given to millions of people at the time.

That included giving shots to children, who had a very high resistance to COVID.

Further, evidence now has confirmed a multitude of side effects of the COVID-19 shots, up to and including death.

"I stand here representing the hundreds of millions of Americans who are not medical professionals, academics, or journalists but who simply knew that what was happening in America was not right. We went to social media to voice our opinions and were silenced by government employees who bullied social media snowflakes into silencing our voices. The government has no authority to police our opinions; they are protected speech. I would argue the government is the source of misinformation, and it is our responsibility as Americans to make every effort to correct that," said Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs.

A report from NCLA said the case is Murthy v. Missouri, and the high court considered whether to affirm a historic preliminary injunction granted by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

That has been temporarily "stayed," but it would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

It originally sas U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty who blasted the government for its program to blacklist, shadow-ban, de-boost, throttle and suspend social media activity by those who disagreed with the Biden administration's chosen, and sometimes faulty, opinions on COVID.

"This censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to CVID-19 exists, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy," the legal team said.

NCLA has pointed out that the First Amendment’s text forbids "abridging" the freedom of speech, "meaning the government’s scheme violates the Constitution even when it encourages social media platforms to suppress legal speech without coercing them."

Other plaintiffs are Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff.

"Just down the street, the Constitution of the United States sits in the Archives. If Americans don’t stand up and defend our constitutional rights, it is just a piece of paper. I am honored to be here with NCLA and my co-plaintiffs to defend the constitutional right of free speech, which has been systematically suppressed by the federal government. I trust that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold the injunction against government censorship of constitutionally protected speech," Kheriaty said.

Mark Chenoweth, president of the NCLA, said, "The First Amendment does not allow the government to abridge speech based on whether the speech is true or false. That is what the government did here, and if that is allowed then the First Amendment is a dead letter"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

It looks like NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers will not be the presidential running mate of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after all.

A published report by Mediaite indicates the independent candidate is planning to select Nicole Shanahan, a California-based attorney and entrepreneur once married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.