This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A fight over a city's attempt to foil the operations of a family business is headed to the Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to strike a city's move to confiscate the family's land for an unplanned park that won't have any improvements.

The park, according to the appeal on behalf of Ben and Hank Brinkmann of Southold, New York, is just a ruse to cover the city's "true purpose" of stopping their business, according to the Institute for Justice, which has taken up the family's fight.

The ruling from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the family could not stop city officials from confiscating their land for a "passive park," which is undeveloped property that city officials apparently intend to leave that way.

"Ben and Hank Brinkmann bought undeveloped property in Southold for a new location of a family hardware store their parents started in the 1970s. But Southold’s inner circle apparently didn’t want the Brinkmanns’ business in town. So they began a campaign to wrap the new hardware store in red tape with dizzying permitting requirements, abrupt regulatory changes, and delays. But Ben and Hank persevered, jumping through every hoop," the IJ explained.

But, "Unable to thwart the Brinkmanns’ perfectly legal business, the town decided to use eminent domain to seize the property for a so-called 'passive park,' meaning a park that won’t be improved. There is no dispute that the park was dreamed up on the fly simply to stop the Brinkmanns. Evidence shows none of the planning normally associated with parks, and the town never mentioned the park to the Brinkmanns while they ran their multiyear permitting obstacle course," the IJ pointed out.

The family challenged the use of eminent domain to take their land because the park was a pretext, but the judges allowed it.

"This is about more than our family business," Hank Brinkmann said in a statement released through his lawyers. "Our case is about defending the right of everyone’s family business to stay in business when they play by the rules. We look forward to asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop eminent domain abuse."

Two judges in the majority admitted there was no dispute that "the decision to create the park was a pretext for defeating the Brinkmanns’ commercial use."

But they said courts "do not inquire into alleged pretexts and motives."

One judge, dissenting, warned, the ruling was "gutting an important constitutional protection for property."

In fact, "the court’s decision grants governments virtually unlimited power over private property—as long as the governments are willing to act in bad faith," the dissent charges.

The ruling also creates uncertainty regarding eminent domain all across the nation.

"The federal courts have too often treated property rights as second-class citizens, but the takings clause is written right there in the Fifth Amendment," said Institute for Justice Attorney Jeff Redfern. "The Supreme Court has in recent years paid careful attention to the plain language of the Constitution and this case is an opportunity to be clear that eminent domain cannot be used in bad faith to stop lawful businesses."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Former special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated Joe Biden for taking – and keeping – classified government documents when he was a private citizen after his vice presidency ended – told Congress Tuesday his recommendation against charging Biden because of his diminished mental capacity was fair.

A new report also revealed that Biden did, in fact, have an explanation for how classified documents came to be stashed on the floor of his unsecured garage at his home.

"There was stuff one day," Biden claimed. "I came home and all of it was on the garage floor."

Hur's recommendation against charging Biden for his apparent violations of federal law by taking and keeping government secrets from his days as a senator and vice president for Barack Obama, keeping them even as a private citizen, already has been used by President Donald Trump, who was charged for similar circumstances.

His lawyers have pointed out that similar situations resulted in vastly different prosecutorial decisions, which suggests the Trump case is being used to target him with a selective prosecution.

In Hur's opening statement to a congressional committee investigating Biden for possible impeachment, he confirmed, "We identified evidence that the president willfully retained classified materials after the end of his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. This evidence included an audio-recorded conversation during which Mr. Biden told his ghostwriter that he had 'just found all the classified stuff downstairs.'"

He confirmed other recorded conversations when Biden "read classified information aloud to his ghostwriter."

But he suggested the evidence identified did not rise "to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

He said Biden himself raised the issue of his memory and mental capacity.

"There has been a lot of attention paid to language in the report about the president’s memory, so let me say a few words about that. My task was to determine whether the president retained or disclosed national defense information 'willfully'—meaning, knowingly and with the intent to do something the law forbids. I could not make that determination without assessing the president’s state of mind. For that reason, I had to consider the president’s memory and overall mental state, and how a jury likely would perceive his memory and mental state in a criminal trial. These are the types of issues prosecutors analyze every day. And because these issues were important to my ultimate decision, I had to include a discussion of them in my report."

He explained, "The evidence and the president himself put his memory squarely at issue. We interviewed the president and asked him about his recorded statement, 'I just found all the classified stuff downstairs.' He told us that he didn’t remember saying that to his ghostwriter. He also said he didn’t remember finding any classified material in his home after his vice presidency. And he didn’t remember anything about how classified documents about Afghanistan made their way into his garage."

At the same time as Hur's testimony, a report from Just the News cited portions of transcripts of Biden's claims during the interview with Hur, who concluded, "Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

Biden is 81.

That transcript revealed he had "memory lapses," but admitted retaining papers from his years in office, saying he couldn't keep track of everything, the report said.

The report said, "The transcript shows Biden failing to recall or being able to answer specific questions at least 100 times … In one line of questioning about President Biden’s time after he left the vice presidency in early 2017, he struggled to remember the year of important events, like Donald Trump’s election in 2016 and the death of his son, Beau Biden, who died after a battle with brain cancer in 2015."

Just the News reported the transcript contradicts claims from Biden after the report was released. "The president was publicly indignant and criticized Hur for allegedly raising the topic" of his son's death.

Biden claimed to reporters, "How in the hell dare he raise that," Biden said to reporters, speaking about Hur. "Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business."

But the truth is that Biden first mentioned his son's death.

Biden also claimed Trump was elected in 2017. It was 2016.

 

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Reports already have surfaced that Israeli officials believe the Joe Biden administration is interfering in that nation's governance.

It came about when a U.S. intelligence report claimed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government "may be in jeopardy" amid ongoing criticism from Biden.

A "senior official" then said "Those who elect the prime minister of Israel are the citizens of Israel and no one else…. Israel is not a protectorate of the U.S. …"

But now a report from Fox News explains that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., openly is calling for regime change in Israel.

He wants Israelis to replace Netanyahu with a new prime minister.

"In what was billed as a major speech on a two-state solution, Schumer said on the Senate floor on Thursday that Netanyahu was one of four obstacles to this solution," the report said.

Schumer claimed, "Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost his way by allowing his political survival to take precedence over the best interests of Israel."

Schumer classified Netanyahu with Hamas as obstacles.

Schumer, apparently ignoring the fact that Israelis already have held elections, insists on new ones.

He said new elections are "the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel."

Schumer based his demands that another nation submit to his will on his claim that Netanyahu is in league with "far-right extremists" in Israel's war on the terrorists in Hamas, who invaded last Oct. 7 and butchered some 1,200 civilians.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R–Ky., followed Schumer's demands with a recommendation that "The Jewish state of Israel deserves an ally that acts like one."

Michael Herzog, Israeli ambassador to the U.S., said on social media, "Israel is a sovereign democracy. It is unhelpful, all the more so as Israel is at war against the genocidal terror organization Hamas, to comment on the domestic political scene of a democratic ally. It is counterproductive to our common goals."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A judge in Georgia who is expected in coming days to determine whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' personal relationship with a special prosecutor she hired to assemble an election interference case against President Trump corrupted the legal filings has taken an intermediate step by tossing some of her counts.

Judge Scott McAfee issued an order Wednesday killing six counts in Willis' case against Trump and some 18 other defendants.

He explained the state failed to meet the legal requirements for charges by failing to claim sufficient detail for the six counts he dismissed – involving "solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer."

The judge's ruling said his "concern is less that the state has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the defendants – in fact it has alleged an abundance. However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned opinion, fatal."

That means, he said, prosecutors refused to "give the defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the defendants could have violated the Constitution and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways."

The decision perhaps could be seen to reflect on the larger issue in the case: the fact that Willis hired her paramour, Nathan Wade, at a cost to taxpayers of two-thirds of a million dollars, to assemble the "organized crime" elections case against Trump.

However, analysts have noted that he had literally no experience in this type of case.

McAfee recently concluded a series of hearings on the defendants' claims that Willis had improper conflicts of interest in the case because it was alleged she used tax money to pay Wade, and as part of their relationship, she benefited by going on exotic vacations and trips with him.

She testified she reimbursed him for her costs in those trips in cash, but said she could not provide any evidence of that.

McAfee is expected to rule shortly on whether Willis will be allowed to continue to participate in the case. In fact, it could be determined that neither she nor her office will be allowed, and that could mean the case would be thrown back to its start, and another prosecutor would have to start assembling evidence.

report by Fox News said the judge pointed out that Willis' claims lack "detail concerning an essential legal element."

Fox explained, "Georgia state law prohibits any public officer from willfully and intentionally violating the terms of his or her oath as prescribed by law. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis alleged that Trump and six of his co-defendants illegally attempted to persuade numerous state officials to violate their oaths in an effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia."

The case is based largely on evidence resulting from a recording of a telephone call between Trump and state officials, but evidence already has come out that that telephone call probably was recorded illegally.

The counts stem from Willis' claims that Trump and others tried to convince state officials to challenge the election count, but the judge said the prosecutor would have had to claim an underlying felony.

"In other words, a naked charge of solicitation cannot survive unless accompanied by additional elements establishing the solicited felony," the judge wrote.

Regarding the evidence of Willis' conflicts of interest, the judge already has noted it is "clear that disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one."

report from NPR said Trump now faces 10 charges in the case, not 13.

Critics have accused Willis of lying to the court regarding her relationship with Wade.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump often has charged that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.

Democrats and other leftists have joined in a campaign to claim that makes him a threat to "democracy," although they are the ones skirting the ideology of democracy to censor others' opinions and to try to keep their political critics off ballots by putting them in jail.

But now an expert, a top state elections official, has confirmed that's exactly what happened to President Trump.

It is a report at the Federalist that explains how West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner, who is credited with extensive work to clean up and secure his state's elections, also has been critical of the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

"'When we have our federal agencies lying to the American people, that’s the most insidious thing that we can do in elections,' Warner told officials from the FBI and CISA on a panel at the February meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State in Washington, D.C., according to Wired’s Eric Geller," the report said.

"While Geller did his best to defend the federal agency — under the suggestive headline, 'How a Right-Wing Controversy Could Sabotage US Election Security' — its history of censorship and election interference validate Warner’s concern," the report said.

The Federalist explained that CISA was set up in 2018 "to ostensibly 'protect 'critical infrastructure' and guard against cybersecurity threats.' It moved into the nefarious business of information management by partnering with Big Tech to silence speech that it deemed to be 'disinformation,' 'misinformation,' or the Orwellian-sounding 'misinformation.'"

It long has adopted censorship as a means to control the information Americans get.

Warner, in a recent debate, explained bluntly, that 2020 was "rigged."

"The election was stolen and it was stolen by the CIA," he said.

The Federalist noted he cited ex-CIA chief Michael Morell's testimony under oath to Congress that Antony Blinken, then a Biden adviser, "reached out" to him about the damning scandal details about the Bidens in the laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden.

That, Morell charged, "set in motion" the scheme in which 51 ex-intelligence officials claimed, without evidence, that the laptop scandal details were Russian disinformation.

"Yes, [Morell] colluded with [now-Secretary of State] Antony Blinken to sell a lie to the American people two weeks before the election for the very purpose of throwing the presidential election," Warner said. "And the FBI covers it up."

The FBI chose to interfere in the election by telling media corporations to suppress the accurate reporting about the Biden scandals. Subsequent polling showed that probably took the election victory away from President Trump and gave it to Biden.

Morell testified he pushed the letter to help Biden, "because I wanted him to win the election."

Warner also noted the $400 million plus handed out by Mark Zuckerberg to elections officials who often used it to recruit Biden supporters.

The Federalist reported Warner already has cleaned up West Virginia's voter rolls, cut ties with leftist influence organizations and now is running to be governor.

Election law expert Cleta Mitchell said, of Warner, "He speaks the truth — he is a true patriot and I only wish we had 50 state election officials just like him."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Appalled at the suspected circumstances of the 2020 presidential election, hundreds of supporters of President Donald Trump gathered in Washington in January 2021 to protest the certification of a count giving the White House to Joe Biden. Some rioted, triggering the years-long and continuing Democrat and Deep State campaign claiming they tried, that day, to overthrow the U.S. government, take control of its economy, military, foreign policy, and more, as an "insurrection" would.

Since then, many Democrat-controlled jurisdictions have been trying to cripple Trump's 2024 White House campaign on the grounds he pushed for an "insurrection."

Of course, evidence of blatant 2020 election rigging is everywhere: Mark Zuckerberg handed out $400 million to elections officials who mostly used it to recruit Democrat voters, in an influence operation never seen before in American elections. The FBI's interference manifested as instructions to media corporations to suppress information about Biden family scandals documented in a laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden at a repair shop -- right before the election. A subsequent poll showed that the censorship campaign likely handed the Oval Office to Joe Biden.

But now, Democrats have come up with an entirely different definition of "insurrection" and view of the constitutional requirement if, for example, Trump should win the 2024 vote, according to a new poll.

"A national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The National Pulse finds that 35% of Likely U.S. Voters say, if Trump wins this year’s election, they would support Democrats in Congress refusing to certify the election results, including 20% who would Strongly Support such a move. However, a majority (55%) would oppose Congress members refusing to certify a Trump victory, including 44% who Strongly Oppose the idea. Another 10% are not sure," the polling company reported.

But among Democrats, a majority would support ignoring the constitutional requirements and simply refusing to certify Trump's victory, it said.

The survey of 912 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on March 5-7, 2024 by Rasmussen Reports and The National Pulse. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points.

report by Breitbart News said the poll showed 57% of Democrat voters would oppose congressional action to certify a Trump victory.

"Some Democrats in Congress have said that if Trump wins this year’s election, they will vote against certifying the election results because of Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?" voters were asked.

A majority of Democrats fell into line with that agenda, the report said. And "nearly two-thirds of 'liberals' said they would oppose certification."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee for the White House, has released a fact-filled video blasting Joe Biden's administration in advance of the Democrat's scheduled State of the Union.

"Joe Biden is on the run from his record and lying like crazy to try and escape responsibility for the horrific devastation he and his party have created. All the while they continue the very policies that are causing this horror show to go. We cannot take it any longer as a country," Trump charged.

He outlined how his administration had worked on border security, only to see those efforts destroyed by Biden when he took office.

There's now a total disaster at America's southern border, and Biden critics point out he's allowed in millions of illegal aliens, including what amounts to an "army" of military-age men who could attack from inside.

The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump said, "Biden has aided and abetted the importation of millions and millions of illegal alien migrants and resettled them into your communities.

"It’s time to tell Crooked Joe Biden, 'You’re Fired!'

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Joe Biden's State of the Union speech likely was not written for delivery Thursday evening to include how he opened the southern border and created a crisis for the whole nation – an invasion of millions of illegals.

Or his policy changes that allowed literally tons of illegal drugs to flood into America, killing people.

Or his disastrous economy that has seen inflation for consumers up 18% since he took office. And those mortgage rates that have doubled, pushing millions out of the housing market.

Or his attacks on America's energy industries.

Or his surging crime.

So House Speaker Mike Johnson has done it for him.

The Washington Examiner explained Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, was citing Biden's record.

His video "combined clips of Biden’s comments about the border, economy, and other policy matters with his worst moments, including tripping up the stairs of Air Force One," the report said of the video headlined, "The State of the Union is in decline."

"While the White House plans to use the annual address as a 'reset,' Speaker Johnson is reminding the American public that the reason a reset is even necessary is because of President Biden’s failed agenda and failed leadership," Johnson's office said.

"The State of the Union address will offer the American people an opportunity to hear directly from the President — a rare occurrence during his tenure in office. In just three years, President Biden’s policies have rapidly accelerated American decline on every issue from the economy to national security and foreign policy,” Johnson said in a statement. “The American people don’t need empty words on a page for a ‘reset’; we need better policies and a real leader.”

The video also includes Biden's poorly planned and handled pullout of troops from Afghanistan, when Americans were killed and tens of billions of dollars of war machinery were left behind for the terrorists in the Taliban.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Following in the footsteps of Sen. Chuck Schumer, who earlier publicly threatened members of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other Democrats, Joe Biden took the same approach during his politicized State of the Union speech.

"With all due respect, justices, women are not without electrical power! Excuse me, electoral or political power. You're about to realize…"

A report by The Gateway Pundit noted the threat was a Biden ad-lib, as it was not in the White House transcript prepared for his speech.

That said, "Many of you in this Chamber and my predecessor are promising to pass a national ban on reproductive freedom. My god, what freedoms will you take away next?"

The Daily Mail reported it was one of many "political barbs" in the partisan speech.

The Supreme Court did, in fact, rule 6-3 that the abortion right-fabricating Roe decision from 50 years ago was not based on the Constitution.

The new ruling did not ban abortion, but simply left it up to the states.

Since then, Democrats and other leftists have been issuing threats to change the makeup of the court by adding leftist judges, taking the power for abortion decisions away from the court, and more.

The justices, by tradition, do not applaud politics during the State of the Union, so were at a disadvantage created by Biden, who attacked them personally.

WND reported that Schumer enraged over the possibility of a pro-life decision coming out of the Supreme Court, went to the courthouse itself and screamed a threat at the justices.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Schumer's words prompted Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to rebuke the Democratic leader.

He said, "Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous," Roberts warned. "All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter."

WND reported, too, when another Democratic senator threatened the U.S. Supreme Court if its justices don't vote the way he wants on abortion.

That was Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who told The Hill that if the justices do not vote the way he wants on abortion:

"It will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme Court if this activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles. It's already driving that movement. Chipping away at Roe v. Wade will precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain number of votes to strike down certain past precedents."

Longtime liberal and constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, at the time, warned of the consequences of such threats.

"I have previously criticized Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., for his almost unrivaled advocacy of censorship and speech controls. Blumenthal previously threatened social media companies not to 'backslide' in censoring opposing views. Now, Blumenthal is taking up the cudgel of court packing with not-so-subtle threats to conservative justices that, if they do not vote with their liberal colleagues, the court may be fundamentally altered. He is not alone in such reckless and coercive rhetoric."

Turley noted, "Democratic leaders not only have embraced court packing but now openly threaten the court to vote with the liberal justices or face dire consequences for the court. …The Democrats are pushing to engage in court packing despite polls showing heavy opposition to the move from voters as well as opposition from the justices themselves."

Yet another Democrat threatening the court was Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who, according to Fox News, "issued a warning" to the justices in light of oral arguments in an abortion case.

"I hope the Supreme Court is listening to the people of the United States because – to go back to Adam Sexton’s question – I think if you want to see a revolution go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade, and see what the response is of the public, particularly young people," Shaheen said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

As if Fulton County, Georgia, DA Fani Willis wasn't facing enough trouble already in her radical organized crime case against President Donald Trump and more than a dozen others, a ruling is expected as early as this week that might boot her from the case over conflicts of interest.

The facts are that there have been allegations of perjury, subordination of perjury, bribery, kickbacks, and more in the case. The fight is over her claims that there was an organized conspiracy involving Trump and others to violate the law following the 2020 presidential election.

Now a report from The Federalist documents how the entire case came about because of evidence from an illegally recorded telephone call.

And under court precedent, such evidence is simply not usable in any case.

It is Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, editor-in-chief at The Federalist, who dived into a new book, "Find Me the Votes: A Hard-charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rogue President, and the Plot to steal an American Election," by activists Mike Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman.

They talk about Jordan Fuchs, a political activist working for the state of Georgia, who recorded that "widely misunderstood" phone call which Democrats claim included illegal behavior.

The book confirms that the call, which predicated Willis' entire case, "was illegally recorded. That means the entire prosecution could crumble with defendants having a new avenue to challenge Democrat lawfare," the report said.

The book states, "Fuchs has never talked publicly about her taping of the phone call; she learned, after the fact, that Florida where she was at the time is one of fifteen states that requires two-party consent for the taping of phone calls. A lawyer for Raffensperger’s office asked the January 6 committee not to call her as a witness for reasons the committee’s lawyers assumed were due to her potential legal exposure. The committee agreed. But when she was called before a Fulton County special grand jury convened by Fani Willis, she was granted immunity and confirmed the taping, according to three sources with direct knowledge of her testimony."

Explained the report, "Democrat Fani Willis’ legal troubles extend beyond recent revelations that she deceptively hired her otherwise under-qualified, secret, married lover to run the political prosecution of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans in Georgia."

It continued, "For years, the media and other Democrats have held up Willis as a brilliant and credible prosecutor of Republicans. The new book suffers from poor timing, with Willis and her lover accused of perjury, subornation of perjury, bribery, and kickbacks related to the prosecution. Willis could be removed from the prosecution as early as this week."

The telephone call was between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Willis has recalled, according to the book, hoping that Raffensperger was in Fulton County for the call, so she could use her "false understanding" to prosecute Trump.

But the book confirms Fuchs, a political activist, recorded the call in Florida, "where it is illegal to record a call without all parties to the call consenting to the recording. She neither asked for nor received consent…"

The report notes Fuchs, in the book, offers "frankly unhinged" comments about the 2020 election and displays a lack of knowledge about elections, thinking "Georgia requires voters to use Social Security numbers to vote."

"Fuchs is instead described as a 'street-smart deputy' of Raffensperger who is obsessed with personal slights, political payback, and her hatred of Trump, his supporters, and his team," The Federalist reports.

Fuchs recorded the call involving, Trump, Raffensperger, and their associates, then promptly handed it to The Washington Post, which is known for its agenda to push false theories that damage President Trump.

The report confirmed Fuchs said in a Facebook post she was in Florida visiting family around the time of the call.

"The authors go on to say Fuchs would attempt to escape prosecution for the call if a Florida official brought charges by claiming she taped and immediately leaked the call to The Washington Post for 'law enforcement purposes.' The authors somewhat hilariously describe this claim as an 'effective defense,'" The Federalist explains.

The book then also confirms that the recording "was the single piece of damning evidence that had launched [Willis'] investigation."

But that entire investigation would be considered corrupt, if based on illegally obtained information.

"Fruit of the poisonous trees is a doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained," according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. "As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential 'tree' is tainted, so is its 'fruit,'" the report said.

"With Fani Willis repeatedly saying the entire investigation into Republicans was the result of a phone call that was illegally recorded, defendants might pursue legal recourse," the report said.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts