Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump issued a full statement on special counsel Jack Smith’s reissuing his Washington, D.C., indictment Tuesday:
“In an effort to resurrect a ‘dead’ Witch Hunt in Washington, D.C., in an act of desperation, and in order to save face, the illegally appointed ‘Special Counsel’ Deranged Jack Smith, has brought a ridiculous new Indictment against me, which has all the problems of the old Indictment, and should be dismissed IMMEDIATELY. His Florida Document Hoax Case has been completely dismissed. This is merely an attempt to INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION and distract the American People from the catastrophes Kamala Harris has inflicted on our Nation, like the Border Invasion, Migrant Crime, Rampant Inflation, the threat of World War III, and more….’
“….For them to do this immediately after our Supreme Court Victory on Immunity and more, is shocking. I’ve also been informed by my attorneys, that you’re not even allowed to bring cases literally right before an Election – A direct assault on Democracy! This is an unprecedented abuse of the Criminal Justice System. The case has to do with ‘Conspiracy to Obstruct the 2020 Presidential Election,’ when they are the ones that did the obstructing of the Election, not me. They cheated on the Election, and they go after me for ‘cheating on the Election.’ Interestingly, this comes at the exact same time as Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has admitted to concealing massive amounts of information, such as Hunter Biden’s Laptop from Hell, which is a direct acknowledgment that the 2020 Presidential Election was MANIPULATED and RIGGED by the DOJ. What they are doing now is the single greatest sabotage of our Democracy in History….’
“….This travesty is now on Comrade Kamala Harris, who is actively pushing it, rather than immediately calling for its dismissal, as should be done. This is for Third World Countries and Banana Republics, not for the U.S.A.! As Jack Smith knows, the whole case should be thrown out and dismissed on Presidential Immunity grounds, as already ruled unequivocally by the U.S. Supreme Court. Smith rewrote the exact same case in an effort to circumvent the Supreme Court Decision. The people of our Country will see what is happening with all of these corrupt lawsuits against me and will REJECT them by giving me an overwhelming Victory on November 5th for President of the United States….’
“….No Presidential Candidate, or Candidate for any Office, has ever had to put up with all of this Lawfare and Weaponization directly out of the Office of a Political Opponent. They’ve Weaponized local D.A.s and Attorney Generals, and anybody else that will listen, to Interfere with the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election – Never been done before. This is now Kamala’s Weaponized System against her Political Opponent. All of these Scams will fail, just as Deranged Jack’s Hoax in Florida has been fully dismissed, and we will win the Most Important Election in the History of our Country on November 5th. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”‘
Former President Donald Trump turned himself into the Fulton County jail for booking on Thursday night in what Democrats and corporate media desperately tried to paint as a somber “surrender.” It didn’t take long, however, for his mugshot to steal the spotlight.
Trump immediately posted the photo featuring his instantly iconic glare to X, formerly known as Twitter, and began fundraising off of it. The post, which had raked in more than 1.2 million likes by Friday morning, was the first time Trump used the social media site since the platform banned him in January 2021 and Elon Musk unbanned him in November 2022.
“ELECTION INTERFERENCE,” the accompanying text reads. “NEVER SURRENDER!”
Trump’s return to X certainly made waves but he wasn’t the only one breaking the internet on Thursday night. Democrats and their propaganda press pawns no doubt intended for Trump’s booking photo to publicly humiliate him. The hordes of Photoshop fiends online, however, were only emboldened. Dozens of memes poking fun at the deep state’s latest election interference plot are circulating on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Here are the best Trump mugshot memes that prove just how silly Democrats’ indictment frenzy really is.
“Fulton County Releases First Official Portrait Of The 47th President Of The United States,” The Babylon Bee’s latest mugshot headline states.
“Me when I pull up to a Chik Fil-A on a Sunday,” Federalist Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland quipped.
Another X user said Trump’s unimpressed scowl is the same look you give “when you get home and see that they didn’t give you any extra sauce.”
One meme masterpiece shows Trump in black and white with laser eyes. The text on the photo reads “retribution.”
The sister edit in that post, which features Trump’s mugshot in front of the infamous “f-ck around and find out graph,” is especially hilarious since Rolling Stone tried — and failed — to use the same format to mock Trump’s fourth indictment.
Several users likened Trump’s booking photo to other iconic mugshots. One meme compared Trump’s photo to that of Martin Luther King Jr.
Another X user remarked, referring to Trump’s cameo in the classic Christmas movie sequel, that his “Home Alone 2 mugshot collection is slowly expanding.”
Someone else threatened to turn Trump’s stern stare into a thermostat tinkering deterrent.
Trump even joined in the fun by reposting a more serious doctored photo of his mugshot surrounded by guns. Among those targeting Trump in the photo are the “fake news,” the “swamp,” the “deep state,” “RINOs,” and “Democrats.”
For a different kind of mugshot content, consider spicing up your playlists with this spin on Kanye West’s hit song “Gold Digger,” which takes aim at Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for her political hackery.
"Now I ain't sayin' she a vote rigger"#TrumpMugShot at Fulton County
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Friday that U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware David Weiss, who orchestrated Hunter Biden’s sweetheart plea deal, will now serve as special counsel in the government’s probe of the Biden family business. The blatantly partisan decision to appoint a co-conspirator in the plot to cover up the Biden family business should not go unpunished. Republicans should start by impeaching Garland, whose track record even before the recent special counsel appointment was worth immense scrutiny. Garland’s decision to bestow special privileges and status on yet another one of Biden’s corrupt deep-state attorneys only adds to the growing list of reasons why he should be prosecuted and removed.
Garland isn’t the only one who should pay. The whole DOJ, its pawns in the FBI, and whoever in the White House is giving them orders should be held to account for their travesties against the American people. The Biden administration shouldn’t get away with its attempts to obstruct the Democrat president’s role in an international influence-peddling scheme. Unfortunately, the corrupt bureaucracy’s Biden business cover-up is only part of the downfall of the nation.
Any American can see that the biggest election-rigging plot to date is happening right under their noses. Every time there is a bombshell breakthrough in the Biden family corruption case, former President Donald Trump is punished with more concocted charges and indictments. Now more than ever, the right must fight back. If Republicans don’t use their majority in the House and the thin margin in the Senate to curb the deep state, they may never have a chance again.
That sounds dramatic, but it’s true. One look at the actions of the Biden administration and its leftist cronies shows they want nothing more than to undercut the foundational principles of our constitutional republic and replace them with leftist fantasies. Already, leftists have worked overtime to ensure the nation’s cities burned, hardworking taxpayers were forced out of their jobs over a jab, national security was comprised thanks to a wide-open southern border, and American voters didn’t get all of the information they needed to make an informed decision during the 2016, 2020, and now 2024 election cycle.
The few institutions the left doesn’t quite dominate, such as the Supreme Court, are constantly threatened with smears and court-packing campaigns. Red states that have rejected the left’s advances face lawsuits from the feds and out-of-state-funded ballot measures designed to make them look like blue states. As I write, the unconstitutional left is trying to overturn election integrity laws so it is easier to permanently put themselves in power. Once that is accomplished, there’s little to nothing that can be done to fight it. The authoritarian takeover is happening in plain sight, and Republicans are doing very little, if anything, to stop it.
Democrats love to use “X thing or person is a threat to democracy” as the justification for their unconstitutional actions. In reality, leftists and their radical agenda are the biggest threats our self-government faces today.
Impeachment can’t wait until Congress is back from its summer vacation. Defunding the FBI can’t wait until the spineless Senate Republicans get on board. Protecting our elections can’t wait until the corporate media are busy spinning on other issues.
The best time for the right to ward off the destruction of the country is now. Those Republicans who are silent now are throwing American voters to the wolves. Without a defense against a corrupt regime that has no problems imprisoning its political enemies and those it deems guilty of wrongthink, Americans and the founding principles that inspire and invigorate them will be long gone.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Former President Donald Trump pushed back against a 13-count indictment a Georgia grand jury handed down on Monday, saying that an exonerating report will be unveiled next week at his golf club in New Jersey.
“A Large, Complex, Detailed but Irrefutable REPORT on the Presidential Election Fraud which took place in Georgia is almost complete & will be presented by me at a major News Conference at 11:00 A.M. on Monday of next week in Bedminster, New Jersey,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, Tuesday.
“Based on the results of this CONCLUSIVE Report, all charges should be dropped against me & others — There will be a complete EXONERATION! They never went after those that Rigged the Election. They only went after those that fought to find the RIGGERS!”
Trump was indicted by a grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, for allegedly trying to alter the outcome of the 2020 election in that state, which he lost. A grand jury voted Monday night to charge Trump with 13 felony counts, including violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law, as well as violating his oath of office. Several others also were indicted, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who served as one of Trump’s attorneys, and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021, and asked for help to “find” the votes Trump needed to defeat Joe Biden. Trump has admitted to making the call, often referred to the phone call as “perfect” and has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
The criminal case comes as Trump dominates in the polls and leads a crowded Republican field of contenders seeking the party’s 2024 presidential nomination. The Georgia indictment is Trump’s fourth this year, following charges in two federal cases and a New York hush-money case.
Amid allegations President Joe Biden’s Justice Department has spied on former President Donald Trump‘s Twitter account, constitutional legal expert Alan Dershowitz chimed in on Newsmax.
“I can’t imagine there’d be anything in his Twitter account which isn’t public, but if there is something, they should have to justify that: Government can’t just go rummaging through people’s First Amendment statements,” Dershowitz told Wednesday’s “John Bachman Now.”
“But this is a First Amendment case,” he continued, rejecting former Attorney General Bill Barr’s claim to the contrary.
“This is a case all about what Donald Trump said, what he believed. Even the things he did, he did, according to him, because he honestly believed, and still believes, the election was stolen.
“He was wrong, in my view, but my view doesn’t matter under the First Amendment.”
Trump’s election challenge speech, and subsequent seeking of legal remedies, is protected, according to Dershowitz.
“Under the First Amendment, there’s no such thing as a false idea or a false opinion,” Dershowitz told co-hosts Bianca de la Garza and John Huddy.
“The remedy for false ideas and false opinions is to respond to them and write better ideas and better opinions, not to criminalize what somebody said or did consistent with his belief that the election was stolen.”
Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan cannot be trusted to give Trump his right to a fair trial, Dershowitz continued.
“I am a liberal Democrat who has voted for Democrats all my life. I do not trust her; I do not trust her to do justice,” he said. “The test is not only must justice be done, must it seem to be done. I don’t see it being done.”
Chutkan has concerning ties to a law firm “that has had the most conflicts of interest, in my opinion, of any major firm in the United States,” in addition to ties to Hunter Biden and clients and cases tied to Burisma Holdings, according to Dershowitz.
“This is exactly the wrong person to preside over this case,” he warned. “This case is going to be decided largely by the judge, by what instructions the judge gives.
“So, this case should be taken away from her. She should be recused, and she should not be deciding issues that divide the American people. Because they’re not going to trust her judgment.”
The case should be moved out of Washington, D.C., to grant Trump a fair trial, Dershowitz added.
“The case should be taken out of the District of Columbia, to which is 95% anti-Trump, and put in West Virginia or Virginia or some purple area, where at least there’s a shot at getting a fair trial, like there is in Florida, in the county where the trial is going to be taking place in Florida.
“But you know Manhattan and the District of Columbia, I can’t imagine two districts more anti-Trump and more unfair to Trump. The American public is not going to trust them.”
Even though the decision to recuse is in the hand of Chutkan, Dershowitz said keeping it under her hand will leave it open to preemptive appeal all the way up the U.S. judicial system.
“It’s her decision, but it can be appealable,” he said. “If she doesn’t recuse herself and if there’s a conviction, there could be an appeal.
“There’s also some argument that can be made — of course, today, lawyers trying to make creative arguments, they get indicted,” he added, noting the basis of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment listing Trump’s lawyers as alleged co-conspirators, “but there’s some argument that could be made that if there’s a motion to recuse her and she refuses it, that is appealable or subject to a writ of mandamus right away.
“There are cases all ways on that, and so that’s one other possibility that could be explored.”
About NEWSMAX TV:
NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!
Find NEWSMAX in over 100 million U.S. homes via cable/streaming – More Info Here
Legal experts and conservative political pundits erupted after former President Donald Trump claimed he received a letter informing him that he is a target of the Justice Department’s investigation into the Jan. 6th riot.
Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday morning that he expects to face both an arrest and indictment after a letter from Special Counsel Jack Smith told the Republican he is “target of the January 6th grand jury investigation.” The Sunday letter gave Trump “4 days to report to the Grand Jury,” the former president claimed.
“Jack Smith sending President Trump a target letter and then indicating he has to appear in front of the Grand Jury makes no sense,” Brett Tolman, former U.S. attorney and the executive director of Right on Crime, posted on Twitter.
“Rarely do you put a target in front of the GJ. They will plead the 5th and you run the risk of compromising your case given Due Process rights.”
Former President Donald Trump reacts to crowd applause during a campaign event on July 1, 2023, in Pickens, South Carolina. (Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
Jack Smith sending President Trump a target letter and then indicating he has to appear in front of the Grand Jury makes no sense. Rarely do you put a target in front of the GJ. They will plead the 5th and you run the risk of compromising your case given Due Process rights.
“Having witnessed firsthand their abuse of power, no surprise these partisans now want to arrest Trump on political charges. This is a dire threat to the rule of law,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton tweeted.
I was harassed for hours by the Jack Smith grand jury as his anti-Trump prosecutors argued with me about challenges to the 2020 election, including whether or not I watched Trump's election night speech. Having witnessed firsthand their abuse of power, no surprise these partisans…
Radio host and author Mark Levin wrote on Twitter, “Conservatives and Republicans everywhere should be furious with the SOB rogue Biden prosecutor, the AG who’s approving this farce, and the undeniable DOJ/FBI campaign to destroy Trump and re-elect Biden.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith has promised a speedy trial for the former president and noted defendants are presumed innocent. (Fox News screenshot/AP Photo)
Conservatives and Republicans everywhere should be furious with the SOB rogue Biden prosecutor, the AG who’s approving this farce, and the undeniable DOJ/FBI campaign to destroy Trump and re-elect Biden. More on radio this evening.https://t.co/8qNufRvytP
Julie Kelly, author and senior contributor to American Greatness, posted that it is possible Trump will be charged with seditious conspiracy.
I’ve warned of this for over a year.
I take no pride in being right.
Only question now is what charges Smith will bring (strong possibility he’ll seek indictment on seditious conspiracy) and who is charged with him. (Any conspiracy charge requires at least one conspirator) https://t.co/BeLCpvloeM
“Kind of crazy to think that had he illegally bought a gun, lied on the background check form, laundered money, evaded taxes, accepted bribes from foreign oligarchs, and smuggled cocaine into the WH, DOJ would’ve looked the other way,” Federalist CEO Sean Davis tweeted, referencing the DOJ’s investigation into Hunter Biden, in a post that was retweeted by Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance.
“The continued politicization and weaponization of the Department of Justice has turned our institutions into enforcers for the Biden administration’s partisan priorities,” Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz posted. “It remains deeply harmful to the rule of law.”
The continued politicization and weaponization of the Department of Justice has turned our institutions into enforcers for the Biden administration’s partisan priorities.
In his post, Trump wrote that “they have now effectively indicted me three times…. with a probably fourth coming from Atlanta” and added in capital letters, “This witch hunt is all about election interference and a complete and total (political) weaponization of law enforcement!”
Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks during a meeting with U.S. attorneys in Washington, June 14, 2023. (AP/Jose Luis Magana)
A government source with direct knowledge of the situation tells Fox News that Smith’s office did indeed send Trump a target letter.
Trump is already facing 34 felony charges in New York City related to an indictment alleging the falsification of business records and federal charges related to his handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
He has pleaded not guilty in both cases.
Prosecutors in Georgia are conducting a separate investigation into efforts by Trump to reverse the election results in that state, with the top prosecutor in Fulton County signaling that she expects to announce charging decisions next month.
Associated Press and Fox News’ Jake Gibson contributed to this report
Andrew Mark Miller is a writer at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.
Sen. Ron Johnson to Newsmax: Hunter Plea Deal Attempt to Keep Truth From Public
By Brian Freeman | Tuesday, 20 June 2023 02:46 PM EDT
The Hunter Biden plea deal for failing to pay federal income tax and illegally possessing a weapon is highly suspicious and appears to be an attempt to keep the truth from the American public, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Newsmax on Tuesday.
“The timing is more than interesting — just as we find out about a credible source claiming a $5 million to $10 million bribery scheme and [Hunter’s business associate] Devon Archer poised to testify before the House committee,” Johnson told “National Report.”
“Is this the Justice Department’s attempt to try and seal this all up and keep the truth from the American public? This is what I fear.”……………..
To hear President Joe Biden’s supporters tell it, Hunter Biden was finally held accountable Tuesday, and the long national nightmare of him facing any scrutiny at all can finally end.
This accountability for the president’s son, however, was little more than a chiding for offenses that have virtually nothing to do with the serious allegations the Department of Justice should actually be pursuing — like giving a speeding ticket to “the getaway driver after a bank robbery,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley remarked.
Over the past two weeks alone, congressional Republicans have revealed a paid, “highly credible” FBI informant’s report that $10 million was paid in bribes to Hunter and his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, by Ukrainian oligarch and Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky.
Zlochevsky called the then-vice president “the big guy,” a nickname also used in the Biden family’s allegedly corrupt China dealings. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed the existence of two audio recordings Zlochevsky reportedly made of Joe Biden (and another 15 he made of Hunter) discussing their dealings, which Zlochevsky reportedly kept as a sort of “insurance policy” that he’d get what he was paying for.
What was he paying for? Emails from the chairman of Burisma (revealed three years ago) show “the ultimate purpose” of “the deliverables” was “to close down for any cases/pursuits against [Burisma’s president] in Ukraine.” That case was indeed closed down, when Vice President Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor pursuing Burisma.
Congressional investigators also revealed that Hunter helped Burisma executives open an account for their transactions at Satabank,……….
President Joe Biden’s corrupt Department of Justice is so desperate to distract from Republicans’ exposé of the Biden family bribery scandal that it finally brought a handful of weak charges against Hunter Biden for his tax and gun crimes.
Under the guise of serving equal justice, the DOJ announced on Tuesday that it would charge the president’s youngest son with two federal misdemeanor counts for failing to pay his taxes and one federal felony charge for possessing a gun while being an illegal drug user and addict.
Hunter’s lawyers are scrambling to declare “the five-year investigation” into their client as “resolved.” Corporate media like NBC News, similarly, claimed the DOJ’s “resolution suggests that prosecutors did not find cause to file charges related to Hunter Biden’s dealings with foreign entities or other wrongdoing.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Just like when it strategically timed its political arrest of a Republican congressman to coincide with a GOP press conference detailing evidence of Biden corruption, the DOJ is working overtime to ensure that Hunter serves as a distraction from the bigger Biden problem.
Since at least 2021 when Politico exposed records and receipts, the public has known that Hunter, who has an extensive and public history of illicit drug use, appeared to lie about this drug use on the Firearms Transaction Record he filled out during a revolver purchase in 2018.
Government officials such as local police, the Secret Service, FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, likely knew about the lie earlier than 2021 since the .38 revolver soon became the center of a missing gun investigation, in which the Secret Service reportedly tried to interfere on behalf of the Biden family.
Similarly, most of the preliminary federal investigation into Hunter’s 2017 and 2018 financial wrongdoings was completed by 2020.
Yet, U.S. Attorney David Weiss delayed bringing charges against Hunter because, as Politico described, “the investigation would become a months-long campaign issue” that would hurt Biden’s presidential chances. It wasn’t until Republicans’ increasingly evidenced probe into the Biden bribery scheme, which the Biden administration continues to hamper, that Weiss finally decided to target the president’s son.
What a breathtaking and damaging act of misdirection. After five years of investigation into a host of criminal acts by Hunter Biden, the Department of Justice (DOJ) finally brought charges against the president’s wayward son. But while the DOJ hopes the public focuses on words like “charges” and “guilty” to form an image of accountability for all, it’s letting Hunter walk away with the kind of slap on the wrist most defendants can only dream about from inside a prison cell.
In the same breath in which DOJ announced it was filing charges against Hunter Biden, it also stated that the case had already been resolved. Hunter will plead guilty to and serve probation for two tax fraud misdemeanors while a felony firearm possession charge will disappear after he completes pretrial diversion. It’s a resolution that if the defendant’s last name weren’t Biden would sound almost too good to be true.
The feds are notoriously tough on firearms. Nationally, for example, 94.2 percent of federal firearms convictions in 2022 involved some prison time, and the median sentence was 39 months.
Of course, Hunter won’t even have to end up with a conviction. This is an even rarer event. In 2021, fewer than 1 percent of cases filed by U.S. attorneys in federal court resulted in the kind of pretrial diversion offered to Hunter.
It’s that disparity between Hunter’s case and everybody else’s that’s the true problem, not necessarily the sentence itself. After all, the law in question, which prohibits individuals suffering from an illegal drug addiction from possessing a firearm, likely violates the Second Amendment. Plus, diversion programs across the country have improved public safety at lower cost to taxpayers than prison alternatives.
But that’s clearly not how things are shaking out in practice at DOJ, and President Biden has expressed an ongoing willingness to harshly punish firearms offenses. His DOJ is defending this law in court, and he signed a law in 2021 to increase maximum penalties from 10 years to 15 years in prison. Apparently, President Biden does not believe offenders should be treated with kid gloves — at least when it’s not his kid.
Former President Donald Trump was unwilling to negotiate with Justice Department investigators last fall, firm in his belief his documents were protected under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), according to The Washington Post. Christopher Kise, one of Trump’s new attorneys, reportedly sought to approach the investigators before special counsel Jack Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, seeking to “take the temperature down” and make a deal that would avoid a federal indictment. But Trump reportedly rejected that route, preferring to take a legal stance that was ruled on in the “Clinton socks case” against Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton.
Trump has been taking advice from Fitton — at times against the advice of his own hired legal counsel — about the Clinton socks case, the PRA precedent, and his legal right to retain items he did not want to surrender to the National Archives, according to the Post. Kise, a former Florida solicitor general, declined to comment to The Washington Post.
“President Trump has consistently been in full compliance with the Presidential Records Act, which is the only law that applies to Presidents and their records,” a Trump spokesman wrote in a statement to Newsmax.
“In the course of negotiations over the return of the documents, President Trump told the lead DOJ official, ‘anything you need from us, just let us know.’ Sadly, the weaponized DOJ rejected this offer of cooperation and conducted an unnecessary and unconstitutional raid on the President’s home in order to inflict maximum political damage on the leading presidential candidate.
“The Biden regime’s despicable efforts are failing. President Trump maintains a commanding lead in the polls and is poised to reclaim the White House for the American people and make our country great again.”
The National Archives has long rejected Trump’s claims.
“The PRA requires that all records created by presidents (and vice presidents) be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) at the end of their administrations,” it wrote in a June 9 statement as Smith unsealed the 37-count indictment against Trump.
“The PRA treats the records of the president and those of the vice president in almost the same manner such that, in most cases below, president and vice president can be used interchangeably.”
Instead of using the PRA as the basis for the indictment, Smith’s charges reference the Espionage Act of 1917.
Fitton has made the case that the charges against Trump allege no crime and “won’t survive scrutiny.”
“I testified before the grand jury for four hours, and there were a few questions, I guess, they needed to check off in terms of potential criminal activity related to classified information and such, but most of the time was spent arguing with obviously partisan lawyers about policy debates,” Fitton said on Newsmax’s “Eric Bolling The Balance” on Monday before Trump’s arrest and arraignment. “And after four hours, I thought, ‘Why am I being questioned on this First Amendment activity?’
“I saw firsthand that this was a politicized process.
“They set it up so they could concoct and manufacture obstruction when, in fact, there was no obstruction. They left out the fact that [Trump] cooperated and told the senior Justice Department official in his home, ‘You can have whatever you want.’ And he directed his attorneys, right in front of him, ‘Give them anything they want.’ That didn’t make it into the indictment. This indictment is evidence of corruption by the Justice Department.”
Fitton told the Post that he dined with Trump on Monday, telling the paper he was giving Trump advice but declined to elaborate.
“I think what is lacking is the lawyers saying, ‘I took this to be obstruction,'” Fitton told the Post. “Where is the conspiracy? I don’t understand any of it. I think this is a trap. They had no business asking for the records … and they’ve manufactured an obstruction charge out of that. There are core constitutional issues that the indictment avoids, and the obstruction charge seems weak to me.”
Smith’s grand jury heard from a number of witnesses who were asked about Fitton’s role in advising Trump, according to the Post. Fitton has been publicly active in seeking to get Biden’s Senate records made public, which could include documents related to Tara Reade’s allegations of sexual misconduct when Biden was a senator.
Reade, fearing for her life, fled to Russia seeking asylum. Reade, who worked as a staff assistant in 1992-1993 for then-Sen. Biden, D-Del., has alleged Biden sexually assaulted her and had filed a Senate personnel complaint, which alleged Biden actively withheld from being released from the University of Delaware.
The Clinton socks case Trump has repeatedly mentioned as precedent for the retention of records was originally related to Fitton’s Judicial Watch in 2012, which former President Barack Obama-appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled NARA could not force former President Bill Clinton to turn over audio tapes he kept in his sock drawer. Jackson has been frequently used by the Justice Department against Trump-related officials, lending credence to House Republican arguments there is a weaponization of justice and the government against Trump and conservatives.
Fitton told the Post he remains convinced Trump lawyers “should have been more aggressive in fighting the subpoenas and fighting for Trump.”
Republican support for former President Trump, who was arraigned in a Florida federal court Tuesday, remains steady, according to a new poll. A Quinnipiac University poll Wednesday showed Trump’s favorability rating at 37% among registered voters, largely unchanged from the group’s previous polls. The poll was conducted June 8-12, while Trump’s charges and scheduled court hearing dominated the news. The indictment against Trump was unsealed June 9.
Trump pleaded not guilty to federal criminal charges that he illegally retained national security records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, following the end of his term in office, and that he obstructed federal efforts to recover the documents. In total, Trump faces 37 felony charges.
“A federal indictment. A court date on a litany of charges. A blizzard of critical media coverage. The negative impact on the former president’s standing with voters? Not much at all,” said Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy.
Biden, according to the Quinnipiac University poll, holds a slight lead over Trump, 48% to 44%, among all registered voters in a hypothetical general election matchup. (Rachel Jessen/Bloomberg, Bing Guan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Given a list of 10 candidates seeking the GOP nomination for president, 53% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said they support Trump, and 23% support Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis for the nomination. Other Republicans running to represent the GOP in 2024 — former Vice President Mike Pence, former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — each received 4% support. Vivek Ramaswamy received 3% support, and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson received 1% support.
Thirty-three percent of all registered voters who responded to the survey said they hold a favorable view of DeSantis, while 48% said the opposite. However, 18% said they haven’t heard enough about DeSantis, compared to 3% who said the same for Trump.
Among the Republicans who hold low ratings from registered voters, 40% of voters said they haven’t heard enough about Haley, 55% said they haven’t heard enough about Scott, 27% said they haven’t heard enough about Christie, 70% said they haven’t heard enough about Larry Elder, 75% haven’t heard enough about Ramaswamy and 72% haven’t heard enough about Hutchinson.
A handful of 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls, from left to right: South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, radio host Larry Elder and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. (Getty Images/Reuters Photos)
As for Biden, 42% of the survey respondents said they hold a favorable view of the president, and 54% said the opposite. Thirty-eight percent said they approve of Biden’s handling of the economy, compared to 57% who said they do not approve. On foreign policy, 39% said they approve of Biden’s handling and 53% disapprove.
Despite the low favorability rating, Biden, according to the poll, holds a slight lead over Trump, 48% to 44%, among all registered voters in a hypothetical general election matchup. A previous national poll from Quinnipiac University in May showed Biden with 48% support from all registered voters while Trump garnered 46%.
Among Democrats challenging Biden for the party’s nomination for president, attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. received 17% support from Democratic and Democrat-leaning voters who were surveyed, and self-help author Marianne Williamson received 8% support. Thirty-one percent of registered voters said they hold a favorable view of Kennedy compared to 7% who said the same for Williamson.
Democratic presidential contenders Marianne Williamson, President Biden and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Scott Olson/Ting Shen/Joseph Prezioso)
Asked about the most important issue for the upcoming presidential election, 30% of respondents marked the economy, followed by 27% who said preserving democracy in the U.S. was paramount. Other issues — like abortion, gun violence, immigration, health care, racial inequality and climate change — failed to reach 10% support from respondents who weighed the most important issues ahead of the 2024 election.
Among independents, 35% said the economy was the most important issue, followed by 27% who said the same for preserving democracy in the United States.
“A rare show of unanimity in a country rattled by discord. There is a substantial amount of concern among Republicans, Democrats and independents over the preservation of the nation’s very bedrock: democracy. The older the respondent, the deeper the concern,” Malloy said.
The Quinnipiac University poll surveyed 1,929 U.S. adults nationwide and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., in a letter sent Tuesday to Attorney General Merrick Garland, requested the Department of Justice preserve and produce all records pertaining to the office of special counsel Jack Smith, calling Smith’s investigation of former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified information “highly irregular and of extraordinary public concern.”
“This information is not only of public interest in the abstract but is highly critical to the ongoing oversight work of the federal Congress,” Gaetz wrote. “While there are innumerable valid legislative purposes for this request, it should be obvious that doing due diligence in vetting an office that has apparently done no vetting of its own personnel, or worse, might affirmatively be seeking to staff with sanctioned lawyers and partisan hatchet-men (and women), is an entirely appropriate purpose and one small reason I am requesting this information.”
Trump was indicted last week on 37 felony charges of willfully retaining classified documents and obstructing justice. Smith framed the indictment as an important step for protecting democracy.
“We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone,” Smith said Friday. “Adhering to and applying the laws is what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Gaetz in the letter claimed that Karen Gilbert, one of the prosecutors on Smith’s team, resigned in 2009 as head of the narcotics section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida after misconduct “which DOJ stated it ‘deeply regrets’ and which cost the American taxpayer over $600,000 in a settlement.”
Gaetz added: “This misconduct was both referred to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility and the Florida Bar. Furthermore, Federal Election Commission records indicate that Ms. Gilbert has made thousands of dollars in donations to ‘Biden for President,’ ‘Obama for America,’ the ‘DNC Victory Fund,’ ‘Obama Victory Fund 2012,’ and associated partisan organizations.”
Gaetz also said the request should be met considering “at least 27 devices used in the Mueller probe were unlawfully wiped clean of records.”
Former President Donald Trump was arrested, processed, and plead “not guilty” on 37 charges related to retaining national-defense information under the Espionage Act of 1917.
“We most certainly enter a plea of not guilty,” Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche told the U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman in a federal court Tuesday in Miami.
The hearing was closed to cameras and live broadcasts. Trump’s former aide Walt Nauta, also charged in the case, appeared in court but was not arraigned because he does not have local counsel.
“Defiant,” Trump legal spokeswoman Alina Habba told Newsmax outside the courthouse, when asked how Trump was feeling.
“We are at a turning point in our nation’s history,” she said, reading prepared remarks outside the courthouse. “The targeted, political prosecution of a leading political opponent is the type of thing you see in dictatorships like Cuba and Venezuela.
“It is commonplace there for rival candidates to be prosecuted, persecuted, and put into jail. What is being done to President Trump should terrify all citizens of this country. These are not the ideals that our democracy is founded upon.
“This is not our America.”
CNN reported Trump was allowed to leave court without conditions or travel restrictions and no cash bond was required. Goodman ruled Trump was not allowed to communicate with potential witnesses in the case, the network said.
The indictment is the first in U.S. history of a former president and sets up a legal battle likely to play out over coming months as he campaigns to win back the presidency in a November 2024 election. Experts say it could be a year or more before a trial takes place.
Trump was to be digitally fingerprinted and have his birthdate and Social Security number taken as part of the booking process, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service told The Associated Press. Trump is appearing in court to answer special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment, which alleges violation of the Espionage Age and other process crimes.
The spokesman said the former president will forgo a mugshot because enough photos of him already exist in the system — confirming what a person familiar with negotiations around the proceedings said earlier. The spokesman said that booking could take place before Trump appears in court or afterward, depending on when he arrives. He said authorities did not plan to immediately alert the media once Trump had arrived. Trump reportedly did not get a mug shot taken during his processing for his Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment earlier this spring.
Security was tight outside the Wilkie D. Ferguson federal courthouse Tuesday ahead of the former president’s court appearance. Trump supporters were gathering hours before the appearance — far outnumbered by the hundreds of journalists from the U.S. and around the world who have converged on downtown Miami.
The case against him is historic but does not prohibit Trump from continuing his 2024 presidential campaign.
After the court appearance, where he could be arraigned and file his not guilty plea, Trump planned to fly to his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, to give an address and host a Trump campaign fundraiser.
The Trump campaign has set a $2 million goal for the fundraiser, which intends to line up big-dollar bundlers for his presidential run, Axios reported Monday. Trump’s campaign has intensified his fundraising efforts in the meantime, including an email Tuesday morning with the subject line: “My last email before my arraignment.”
Information from the AP was used as background for this report.
There is a “fog that’s being created” around the charges against former President Donald Trump, as they’re widely being called a classified documents case when the indictment concerns alleged violations of the federal Espionage Act, former Rep. Devin Nunes, now the CEO of Trump’s Truth Social network, said on Newsmax Monday.
“They are not charging the president with mishandling of classified documents,” Nunes told Newsmax’s “John Bachman Now.” “I think this was done deliberately by the corrupt Department of Justice because all through that indictment, it talks about classified documents, but they don’t actually bring a charge about classified documents.”
In the federal indictment released Friday, Trump is facing 31 counts of violating the Espionage Act through the “willful retention” of classified records, and six counts that include obstruction of justice and making false statements.
“They are very careful about what they say, so they changed the definition of what everybody has been talking about in the fake news: classified documents, classified documents, classified documents,” said Nunes. “Now they’ve changed it to national defense information in order to make a statute from World War I apply to the president.
“It’s a great distinction, but again it isn’t part of that because if they went with the Records Act, it’s civil. This would never be in a federal case.”
Nunes pointed out that he has dealt with classified documents for many years, including when he chaired the House Intelligence Committee.
“I was around when Gen. [David] Petraeus pled to a misdemeanor,” Nunes said. “I was around when Hillary Clinton wasn’t charged. I was even around in Congress when Sandy Berger, the Clinton lawyer, went in and stole documents from the National Archives.”
And in Trump’s case, “what I’m saying here is that this is the classic ‘Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime,'” said Nunes.
The terminology, meanwhile, is being changed so that “if somebody reads that, a layman, just the average person on the street, reads the indictment, you think, Wow, this is really about a bunch of classified documents,” said Nunes. “It’s not about that.”
He added that he’s concerned that the predicate for the indictment is the raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
In addition, Nunes said that last week, it was learned that when the federal archivist was put under oath by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee last week, he said there were two documents he was concerned about: one involving a letter from former President Barack Obama to Trump, and another being a letter from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to Trump.
“How are those not President Trump’s?” said Nunes.
For weeks now, former President Donald Trump and legal experts on the right predicted that the prosecution Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought against Trump was pathetic and partisan. Not long after Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records during his arraignment on Tuesday, some of his most outspoken political enemies also began casting doubt on Bragg’s attempts to send the former president to jail.
Here are the notorious anti-Trumpers who willingly admitted that Bragg’s case against the leader of the Republican Party is a weak attempt to keep him from winning the White House in 2024.
Andrew McCabe
Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe expressed disappointment on CNN on Tuesday after he realized that Bragg’s justification for elevating Trump’s charges to felonies “simply isn’t there.”
“I think everyone was hoping we would see more,” McCabe said.
He later added that “It’s hard to imagine convincing a jury that they should get there.”
"Disappointment," says Andrew McCabe on CNN regarding the indictment. "Everyone was hoping we would see more."
McCabe says the justification to try these misdemeanors as felonies "simply isn't there": "It's hard to imagine convincing a jury that they should get there." pic.twitter.com/PafSwiY2nZ
Jonathan Chait, a political columnist at New York Magazine, wrote in the Intelligencer that Bragg’s case against Trump is littered with “legal deficiencies” and kicks off “the criminalization of politics.”
“Trump is being prosecuted charged because he paid hush money to a mistress, something it’s inconcievable he would have been charged over if he were never a candidate for office,” Chait tweeted.
Alan Dershowitz
Attorney Alan Dershowitz called Bragg’s case against Trump a “politicization of the criminal justice system” and “very, very dangerous for America.”
“This is a scandalous misuse of the criminal justice system,” Dershowitz told Sky News Australia. “It will create a terrible precedent in which other prosecutors will go after people of the opposing party.”
Carrie Cordero
CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero said she expected Bragg’s charges against Trump to be connected to the payments Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels but said the case itself is “a little underwhelming.”
“There’s not more to it. There are not more violations, tax violations. There’s not an incredible new set of facts that we didn’t know about publicly. It’s really the facts of this case, as they have existed for basically almost seven years,” Cordero said.
It’s a little underwhelming – – my reaction w/ @jaketapper & team @CNN in the moment the first ever indictment against a former president was unsealed. pic.twitter.com/USCc2LFCbM
Republican Sen. Mitt Romney’s distaste for the former president is no secret but even his strong anti-Trump bias didn’t stop him from calling out the Manhattan D.A. for having “stretched to reach felony criminal charges in order to fit a political agenda.”
John Bolton
Trump-era National Security Adviser John Bolton says Bragg is “wrong on the applicability of the New York statute” that he charged Trump under.
“Speaking as someone who very strongly does not want Donald Trump to get the Republican presidential nomination, I’m extraordinarily distressed by this document. I think this is even weaker than I feared it would be and I think it’s easily subject to being dismissed or a quick acquittal for Trump,” Bolton explained on a CNN panel on Tuesday.
Even John Bolton thinks the indictment is a joke. "I'm extraordinarily distressed by this document … This is even weaker than I feared it would be." He predicts a "quick acquittal" because the case suggests everything a candidate pays for can be construed as campaign-related. pic.twitter.com/KTyBa72gLo
Bolton warned that “there is no basis in the statutory language to say that Trump’s behavior forms either a [campaign] contribution or an expenditure under federal law” which effectively renders Bragg’s case vulnerable to challenge.
“If you can construe the statute to cover this behavior then I think it violates the First Amendment,” Bolton said.
Ian Millhiser
Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, called Bragg’s case against Trump “painfully anticlimactic” and said it was built on an “uncertain legal theory.”
In the second paragraph of the Vox analysis he penned on Tuesday, Millhiser acknowledges that “there’s a very real risk that this indictment will end in an even bigger anticlimax” because “it is unclear that the felony statute that Trump is accused of violating actually applies to him.”
“Bragg, in other words, has built one of the most controversial and high-profile criminal cases in American history upon the most uncertain of foundations. And that foundation could crumble into dust if the courts reject his legal arguments on a genuinely ambiguous question of law,” Millhiser reaffirms later in the article.
Noah Feldman
Bloomberg opinion columnist and Harvard law professor Noah Feldman wrote in The Washington Post on Tuesday that indicting Trump is a “Risky Bet for New York and the Nation.”
Feldman opens by invoking Democrats’ favorite Trump talking point — “no one is above the law”– but quickly criticized Bragg’s case against the former president as “poorly timed,” “legally weak,” and one that could easily result in a mistrial or acquittal.
“And not only may Trump potentially beat the charges, at trial or on appeal,” Feldman wrote. “He may be able to use those charges to create the impression among his supporters that he is a victim of politically motivated vendetta. In turn, that may make it harder for Georgia or federal prosecutors to bring and sustain much more serious charges against him.”
Mark Joseph Stern
“The Trump Indictment Is Not the Slam-Dunk Case Democrats Wanted,” Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern’s latest headline blared.
According to Stern, Bragg fails to disclose the specific election law that he believes Trump violated even though the “entire prosecution hinges on that question.”
“These charges will be difficult to prove,” Stern warned. “There can be no doubt that the district attorney faces an uphill climb.”
“They tell the story of a complex conspiracy to illicitly alter the course of the 2016 election—potentially, a powerful tale of corruption that persuades both the jury and the public of this prosecution’s necessity,” he continued. “But Bragg’s legal theory is, if not convoluted, a fairly confusing effort to patch together disparate offenses into one alleged crime, carried out over 34 illegal payments. This is not at all the slam-dunk case that so many Democrats wanted.”
Michael Avenatti
Even the lawyer who previously represented on-screen prostitute Stormy Daniels apparently cast doubt on Bragg’s ability to bring a successful case against Trump based on testimony from his former client.
“You can’t build a case on the testimony of Cohen and Daniels,” Michael Avenatti reportedly said.
Jonathan Lemire’s Democrat Sources
MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire told his fellow “Morning Joe” panelists last week that he and other Democrats are concerned Bragg’s case isn’t strong.
“Democrats I’ve spoken to, including some senior members of the White House, who do fear that because this case is weakest, that if it is brought first, that it will be potential — allow Trump to then paint this one as illegitimate, that it’s weak, and suggest that all of the other cases against him are as well. And that is something they’re worried about,” he warned.
Sarah Isgur
Harvard law grad and senior editor of the anti-Trump publication The Dispatch Sarah Isgur admitted on Twitter shortly after Trump’s arraignment that Bragg’s charges don’t make sense.
“He’s tying felony falsification of business records to another state crime that requires unlawful means…so now we need a third crime in order for this ‘felony turtles all the way down’ charge to work. The two state crimes can’t point back to each other!” she wrote.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
Bill and Hillary Clinton’s long, crooked political careers have been marked by multiple well-established high crimes and misdemeanors. Not the least of these was Hillary’s decision to commit what amounts to multiple felonies by using an insecure private email system to conduct top-secret public business while U.S. secretary of state under Barack Obama.
This criminal behavior that so-called U.S. justice systems openly and repeatedly refused to punish was undertaken to hide treasonous actions. Those include selling political access and favors to foreign adversaries, as journalist Peter Schweizer and others, including The Federalist and members of Congress, have repeatedly and thoroughly documented.
Selling political favors to foreign opponents, including communist China and authoritarian Russia, is clearly treason. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “treason” as: “The betrayal of allegiance toward one’s own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.” The Clintons got filthy rich from it.
Clinton then compounded that with more treasonous conduct when she lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump.
It is by now well-established that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid various actors to lie to U.S. intelligence agencies about Trump in an operation that eventually essentially negated the 2016 election — including encouraging federal employees’ treasonous behavior and two falsely predicated impeachments — and helped lose Republicans the 2020 election. Her campaign even tacitly confirmed this by paying a slap-on-the-wrist Federal Election Commission fine while still refusing to admit guilt for it a few weeks ago, seven years after the fact.
BREAKING: Last year Hillary Clinton quietly settled a campaign finance violation over reporting the *Steele Dossier* funding as legal services
Did FBI agents ever show up at Hillary Clinton’s house over her clearly criminal and treasonous “documents dispute”? Nope. The FBI’s director instead essentially confirmed she had committed multiple felonies but decided not to investigate or prosecute her for it because she was a presidential candidate for a major political party.
Hillary paid to have Trump falsely smeared as a traitor, laundering the slander through U.S. agencies that are supposed to provide equal justice under the law but now function as weapons to damage Democrats’ political opposition. In conjunction with others in the Obama administration that likely include Obama himself, she colluded with multiple security-state agencies to slander, undermine, hamper, and now threaten with jail time Democrats’ top political opponent.
That’s treason. It’s election erasure. It’s ongoing. And these traitors are all running about totally scot-free, while they jail their political opponents for what at best are misdemeanors, and for which they refuse to prosecute anyone on the left who perpetrates them — from street rioters all the way up to their presidential candidates.
My colleague Elle Purnell pointed out that when Trump countenanced chants of “lock her up” at his rallies over Clinton’s never-penalized repeat criminal behavior, Democrats lost their minds, and insisted this was the stuff of dictatorships, tyranny, and political repression.
“Dictatorships lock up the opposition, not democracies,”said Spygate intelligence official Michael McFaul. “Since when do Americans advocate jailing political opponents?” said top Spygate propagandist Julia Ioffe, then at Politico.
“In a democracy, you can’t threaten to jail your opponents,” Obama said in 2016. “We have fought against those kinds of things.” “In America, we don’t send our political opponents to jail,”tweeted an official Democratic National Committee Twitter account.
REMINDER In 2016 Trump got huge laughs for telling Hillary Clinton she'd be in jail if he was in charge of the law Then there was four years of agitprop about how this proved that Trump was "a dictator who wanted to imprison his political opponents."https://t.co/jJADWmsMSjpic.twitter.com/hNgTVnmI5W
The Clintons are clearly traitors willing to endanger their nation for profit, and it would be fully just to prosecute them as such. Yet as president when he had the chance, Trump decided not to pursue it. According to Trump Attorney General Bill Barr’s recently published memoir, “Trump brought up the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and surprised Barr by saying that he had wanted the matter to be dropped after the 2016 election,” according to a review of Barr’s memoir in the fall 2022 Claremont Review of Books.
“‘Even if she were guilty,’ he told Barr, “for the election winner to seek prosecution of the loser would make the country look like a ‘banana republic.’”
Ever since riding down his golden escalator, Trump has been ceaselessly vilified as a tinpot dictator, an evil supervillain, an authoritarian, the second coming of Adolf Hitler. But Democrats cannot change the facts, which include that Trump had fully legitimate justification to prosecute his horribly corrupt political opponent and refused to do so. They can make no such argument for themselves.
So, if it is indeed the stuff of banana republics and ending democracies to jail one’s political opponents, let’s all be clear about which political party is dragging the nation down that route. And let all in authority who care about equal justice under the law begin fiercely applying Democrats’ standards to them until they stop perverting justice to destroy our country.
The no-holds-barred legal shutdown and prosecution of leftist insurrectionists filling state capitols in support of a transgender child murderer would be one such proportionate response.
Human beings are not ready for a powerful AI under present conditions or even in the “foreseeable future,” stated a foremost expert in the field, adding that the recent open letter calling for a six-month moratorium on developing advanced artificial intelligence is “understating the seriousness of the situation.” Read more…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and Presiden
America’s two-tiered justice system status was solidified on Thursday after a Manhattan grand jury voted to hit former President Donald Trump with a felony indictment and the threat of imprisonment. Cue the chorus of Democrats and corporate media mouthpieces who spent all of Thursday night on Twitter condescendingly warning: “no one is above the law, not even the former president.”
In addition to suggesting that Trump is not “above the law,” former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claimed that the former president has the opportunity to “prove innocence” in court. Of course, the law, smugly touted by Pelosi, dictates that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty- not the other way around.
Whether Pelosi’s “innocence” comment was a Freudian slip or a genuine assertion, we may never know. What we do know is that for years, Democrats have operated under the belief that their party members and their partisan allies are above the law.
1. The Criminals Alvin Bragg Refused To Prosecute
While Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was busy searching for ways to indict Trump, violent criminals were taking over New York City streets.
During Bragg’s first year in office, major crime in New York City increased by 22 percent. Since then, the DA has made a career out of reducing charges for armed robbers, freeing cop-beaters, relaxing bail, and letting violent antisemites off.
Bragg’s soft-on-crime policies may have earned him left-wing billionaire financier George Soros’ favor and dollars, but even Democrat-voting New Yorkers know that he’s no stranger to giving better treatment to convicts than law-abiding people like this bodega owner who defended himself against a murderous criminal.
If Democrats truly cared about campaign finance law violations, they would have already prosecuted several members of their party, including Hillary Clinton.
In 2022, the Federal Elections Commission fined Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign for falsely attributing the money that the Democrat used to orchestrate the Russian collusion hoax. If Trump is guilty of intent to conceal a campaign finance crime, a motivated prosecutor might look at the DNC and Clinton campaign’s efforts to hide their involvement in the so-called Steele “dossier” and find they were guilty of the same crime.
In addition to her election meddling, Clinton and her staff mishandled highly classified information, which resulted in at least 91 security violations. Instead of raiding her house and asking the DOJ to prosecute her, the FBI “inexplicably agreed to destroy [Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson’s] laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.”
Clinton also played a central role in the decision to abandon four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, where they were murdered by terrorists.
3. Barack Obama
Before Clinton was forced to pay for her scheming, President Barack Obama faced “one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign,” $375,000, for “campaign reporting violations.” Instead of facing calls for prison time, Obama received years of protection from the corporate media and fake fact-checkers who repeatedly downplayed his violation as a proportionally small infraction compared to the billion dollars he raised on the campaign trail.
4. Election Law-Breakers Like Marc Elias
Marc Elias has repeatedly tried to undermine U.S. elections. He has such a reputation for meddling and manipulating elections that even a federal judge reprimanded him for it. Unlike Douglass Mackey, who was charged by the DOJ for posting a meme encouraging Hillary voters to “text” their votes, however, Elias has not faced any charges or unannounced raids.
The president’s son isn’t just a walking liability for the Biden family name, he’s a glaring national security threat with a long, infamous history of using illicit drugs, engaging in possibly criminal sexual escapades with foreign women, and selling access to his dad under the guise of doing business with foreign oligarchs from places like China.
Speaking of communist China, Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell canoodling with a known spy for the nation’s No. 1 enemy seems like a pretty serious offense. Instead of a member of the House Intelligence Committee facing consequences for giving foreign spies access to key U.S. government offices and information, Swalwell is still comfortably rage-tweeting about Trump and MAGA supporters and appearing as a guest on corrupt corporate media programs.
8. Eric Holder
Former Attorney General Eric Holder misled Congress during its investigation of the Obama-era “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal, which used taxpayer dollars to put guns into the hands of Mexican drug lords. Holder was held in contempt, but that’s pretty much the only punishment he received for intentionally dodging subpoenas and hiding documents from congressional oversight.
9. Susan Rice
President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, unmasked members of the Trump transition team and then lied about it. Unmasking may be a legitimate and legal process for those with the authority, but covering up an attempt to target the political enemies of the regime is an abuse of power that deserves examination.
Instead, it was yet another action taken by the U.S. intelligence apparatus to justify spying on American citizens.
10. The Pelosi Family
Suspected insider trading deserves at least a second glance by federal investigators, but it looks like, so far, Nancy Pelosi and her husband Paul have gotten away with conveniently timing their stock purchases and sales to massively grow their wealth.
The same people who love lording “no one is above the law” over Americans are the ones who think they are above any semblance of oversight or law, or constitutionality. If Democrats truly valued rule of law, illegal border crossers, Russia hoaxers, Jeffrey Epstein’s clients, pro-abortion vandals, rioters, and the people who run corrupt government agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the NSA, and the Manhattan DA’s office would be the ones standing in court next week, not Trump.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.
A Manhattan grand jury has indicted former President Donald Trump, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office confirmed following late-Thursday media leaks. While the indictment remains under seal, one thing seems certain: America has now entered the era of “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” politics.
The Democrat district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, breathed new life into the infamous boast of Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief, Lavrentiy Beria, when the Manhattan prosecutor targeted the former president in connection to a 2016 payment made to Stormy Daniels. Bragg’s decision to push for an indictment against Trump, presumably for falsifying business records, promises to herald in a new political age — one in which local prosecutors will target partisan enemies, big and small, making a mockery of the criminal justice system in the process.
The fact that news of the charges leaked to the left’s favorite scribes at The New York Times, while the indictment remained still under seal, punctuates perfectly the Sovietesque times in which we live: The legacy media may not be state-run, but they peddle propaganda, nonetheless.
Guesswork
Until the indictment is unsealed, any discussion of the charges requires some guesswork, and with sources late Thursday reportedly telling CNN the grand jury charged Trump with more than 30 counts, the prognostication is much more difficult. But from earlier reports, it appears the D.A.’s criminal case against Trump revolves around Sections 175.05 and 175.10 of the New York penal code.
Both sections define the state crime of “falsifying business records,” with Section 175.05 providing “a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with the intent to defraud, he makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.” Section 175.10 converts the “second degree” misdemeanor to a felony if the person falsified business records with the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission” of another crime.
The factual theory for charging the former president with falsifying business records seems to rest on “Trump allegedly causing the Trump Organization to falsely report payments made to Michael Cohen in 2017 as ‘legal expenses,’ when the money instead reimbursed (and then some) Cohen for the $130,000 payment he made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to keep the porn star from publicly claiming she had sex a decade earlier.” The Trump Organization then reportedly paid Cohen $35,000 a month for “legal services” in 2017, while Cohen never provided any legal work for the business.
Legal pundits believe the indictment will ratchet up the alleged falsifying of “legal expenses” offense to a felony by charging Trump with lying about the payments to Cohen to conceal a violation of federal election law. Cohen has already admitted to paying off Daniels to advance Trump’s electoral chances, and he appears poised to be a star witness against Trump. Another possibility, however, is that the Manhattan D.A.’s indictment accuses Trump of falsifying the organization’s “legal expenses” to aid in tax fraud.
The U.S. attorney has already declined to charge Trump with federal election law violations, making any attempt by Bragg to tie the federal offense to the state charge of falsifying business records reek of political payback.
Bragg’s expected use of Trump’s physical absence from New York — ironically because he was serving as commander-in-chief in D.C. — to sidestep the five-year statute of limitations that applies to a felony of falsifying business records, will also add to the stench of the case. And a public that watched Trump hounded since he first announced his candidacy for president isn’t likely to focus on the legal technicalities of the statute of limitations. Rather, the average American will consider the delayed charging of Trump to be a desperate ploy to concoct a crime.
Trump himself was quick to advance this theory, opening his press release by calling the indictment “political persecution and election interference at the highest level in history.” “From the time I came down the golden escalator at Trump Tower,” the former president continued, the “Radical Left Democrats … have been engaged in a Witch-Hunt to destroy the Make America Great Again movement.”
“You remember it just like I do,” Trump stressed, ticking off the attacks: “Russia, Russia, Russia; the Mueller Hoax; Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine; Impeachment Hoax 1; Impeachment Hoax 2; the illegal and unconstitutional Mar-a-Lago raid; and now this.”
30-Count Craziness
Trump will reportedly appear in a Manhattan court on Tuesday for his arraignment. Whether the indictment is unsealed before then is unknown. But the leaks continue, including, as noted above, news that the grand jury reportedly charged Trump with more than 30 criminal counts.
Unless Bragg has uncovered something much beyond the details already reported about the Daniels payment, the Manhattan prosecutor will have only made matters worse by pushing for an indictment of the former president on more than 30 criminal counts. Given the lack of leaks about anything new, the most likely scenario is that the grand jury got to 30-plus counts by charging Trump with separate counts for each of the monthly payments made to Cohen in 2017. Then, the grand jury could add additional counts for each month Trump allegedly made the payment to “aid or conceal the commission” of another crime.
With this approach, it isn’t hard to see how easily the grand jury could convert one hush-money payment into some 30 crimes. And while the left and the Never Trump right might see a lengthy indictment as further proof of Trump’s malfeasance, if the indictment contains no new details, the piling on to reach the reported 33 counts against the former president doesn’t make Trump look more guilty — it makes Bragg look more like Beria.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox.SIGN UP
“Justice is indiscriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.” ~John Jay, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
The die is cast. The political persecutions have been happening against average conservative citizens for several years, but it took the indictment of Trump to finally get people’s attention. We no longer have equality under the law. It’s quite evident that a conservative living in a blue state or being prosecuted by the feds in D.C. will never get a fair shake from the prosecutor, judge, or jury. Nothing will change that. The question is whether red states will make their states sanctuaries for liberty and as unhospitable to their political enemies as blue states are to our people.
It wasn’t always this way. We’ve been an extremely divided and polarized nation for quite some time. Sure, in the realm of court decisions or the legal process affecting broad political issues, the political bias of the judges was always quite apparent. But when it came to an individual criminal case, it was always the law that governed. As recently as 2016, a unanimous Supreme Court vacated the conviction of former Republican Governor Bob McDonnell for bribery because they all clearly understood that the governor’s hosting of a company he benefited from, while reeking of sleaze, is endemic of both sides of the political divide and clearly did not meet the definition of bribery under the Hobbs Act.
We no longer live in a world of equal justice under the law. We’ve witnessed how in the same capitol city where violent criminals are released or not prosecuted, Army veterans with clean records were held pretrial and denied due process up and down the legal system on what was, at most, non-violent misdemeanors, and at worst government provocation and entrapment. All of this is taking place while the worst Antifa rioters can take over city streets for weeks with brutal violence. Aside from Elizabeth Warren’s isolated moment of intellectual honesty decrying solitary confinement for J6 defendants, we’ve seen no such outcry for equal treatment. Those perpetrating this believe we are subhuman and not afforded equal protection under the law.
Some countries are open and anarchic like places in the Third World; others are very authoritarian like Singapore, where everyone is punished pretty severely for relatively minor infractions. But what we have here is a two-tiered justice system that is tantamount to targeted and systemic persecution. This is how we wind up with D.C. U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves refusing to prosecute 67% of all arrests, including 52% of all felonies, but announcing 1,200 new prosecutions of J6 protesters, many of individuals who didn’t even violate minor trespassing laws. This is how you have endless Antifa and BLM riots where the most violent people who beat, maimed, looted, and burned police stations to the ground got less punishment than the most innocuous J6 suspects.
We cannot share a country with people who don’t fundamentally believe in equality under the law. This was self-evident before the Trump indictment, and frankly, it’s shameful that so many conservative voices didn’t respond emphatically to this emergency until it affected their man. Nonetheless, if this is what it takes to unite behind a forward-looking agenda, we’ll be better for it. Thus, the only answer is to militarize the legal system of red states just as emphatically as blue states. To that end, red state governors and legislatures should do the following:
1) Fund legal defense of persecuted individuals: The first step is defense. Obviously, Trump has a war chest, but most of his supporters being persecuted or pro-life activists being targeted for praying outside abortion clinics don’t have money. It’s also extremely hard to even get a lawyer willing to fight the system. I personally had trouble finding people lawyers when fighting January 6 charges or businessmen being prosecuted for the “crime” of opening their stores during COVID. Red states should set up a legal defense fund to contribute to the legal defense of those the state AG determines are being targeted with unequal treatment based on political, religious, or social beliefs. The AG’s office can also marshal pro bono lawyers willing to help who know that they will get moral support from the state rather than being targeted as pariahs in their profession for representing such clients.
2) Refuse to extradite: Gov. DeSantis just set a precedent that Florida will not assist with extradition of those politically targeted. Other red-state governors should refuse to extradite people being accused of non-violent crimes when there is compelling evidence that other people accused of similar actions are not targeted with the same level prosecution. In the case of Trump, because he is protected by the Secret Service, there was never a chance that the NYPD would somehow be able to nab him in Florida. But for ordinary citizens, it’s important for red states to make the statement that they will serve as constitutional sanctuaries for equality under the law. This will be harder to pull off in the face of a federal prosecution, but the time has clearly come to tell the blue states to shove it. Every red-state legislature should empower its state AG to block extradition if he determines it is for political reasons.
3) Slash the ABA monopoly: Connected to the previous point, it’s time for state legislatures to require their state judiciaries to recognize alternatives to the American Bar Association, which has unlawfully claimed a monopoly on the entire legal profession to the point where people cannot obtain legal representation over the ABA’s veto. The ABA is sanctioning people like Rudy Giuliani and Professor John Eastman for simply offering their view on constitutional questions.
4) Refuse cooperation with rogue federal agencies: Red states need to pull out of all joint training, sharing of information, and help with logistics or intel to any federal law enforcement agency that continues to target people for their political beliefs.
5) Prosecute the left more zealously: It’s time to fight fire with fire. Just this week, there was a left-wing insurrection at the Tennessee Capitol. We’re not asking red-state prosecutors to take minor misdemeanors and hold people pretrial for two years as the left has done with J6 defendants. However, they should more aggressively use catch-all felony statutes to throw the book at people who legitimately act violent or Democrat politicians and outside groups that legitimately violate laws.
Even though they don’t control the federal government, Republicans control half the states and can easily make these changes today. That’s why the primary focus should be interposing on behalf of the people’s liberties at the state level. However, given the federal tyranny, there is a need to at least push for legal reforms against political targeting with legislation in the House.
6) Pass the “Political Targeting Prosecution Act”: Defendants can theoretically assert an Equal Protection Clause violation; however, practically, the courts have made it almost impossible to succeed in a claim of a selective prosecution defense under the Equal Protection Clause. As such, Congress should pass the Political Targeting Prosecution Act, which would accord defendants the opportunity to present evidence of political targeting based on animus for the individual’s religious or political beliefs. For example, if defendants could show how no BLM rioter who was much more violent was charged with obstructing law enforcement during a public disturbance (18 USC 231(a)(3)), it would trigger a motion to dismiss based on unequal treatment.
7) Fair jury pools: With a country more divided than during the Civil War, it’s self-evident that conservatives cannot get a fair trial in liberal jurisdictions. This has rendered the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to a trial by a jury of one’s peers irrelevant. In order to restore the spirit of that right in this era, Congress must demand that a conservative defendant charged in D.C. can move the trial to the federal jurisdiction where the defendant resides. There should also be a federal right to request an expanded jury pool 20-30 miles outside a major city to obtain a more “equitable” share of like-minded people composing the jury in criminal cases. So for example, whenever Democrats control the Justice Department, by definition, any political opponent will be charged in D.C. with a 95% Democrat jury pool. The new law would prescribe that the individual is tried either in his home state or, if he resides in D.C., he could request a jury pool to rope in parts of Maryland, Virginia, and the West Virginia panhandle to achieve more balance.Trump fans are absolutely correct in asserting that this is about much more than Trump. Indeed, the political persecutions have been going on for quite some time before this indictment. So let’s make our response about more than Trump and more than just promoting talking points. It’s time for action. Let’s systemically combat the weaponization of the justice system against those who have no voice, money, or legal help.
A Manhattan grand jury appears poised to indict Donald Trump, according to news reports and the former president himself. Here’s what you need to know to understand the chatter about the anticipated criminal charges against Trump—and why the move to indict a former president for the first time in our country’s history will make political prosecutions the new norm in America.
While only the grand jury and prosecutors know for certain what charges against Trump, if any, are being considered, the consensus is that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, a Democrat, is pursuing a criminal case against Trump for allegedly falsifying business records, in violation of Sections 175.05 and 175.10 of the New York Penal Code.
Section 175.05 provides “a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree when, with the intent to defraud, he makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.” Falsifying business records in the second degree is a misdemeanor, subject to a two-year statute of limitations.
A violation of Section 175.10, however, is a felony, subject to a five-year statute of limitations. That section defines the offense of falsifying business records in the first degree and provides that if a person falsifies business records with the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission” of another crime, the offense is one in the first degree.
The underlying factual theory for charging the former president rests on Trump allegedly causing the Trump Organization to falsely report payments made to Michael Cohen in 2017 as “legal expenses,” when the money instead reimbursed (and then some) Cohen for the $130,000 payment he made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to keep the pornography performer from publicly claiming she had sex with Trump a decade earlier. In total, the Trump Organization reported legal expenses of $420,000 paid to Cohen in 2017, at a monthly rate of $35,000. Cohen, however, had provided no legal services for the Trump Organization that year.
To bump what would be a misdemeanor under New York law to a felony, pundits are suggesting the D.A. will argue Trump caused the Trump Organization to falsify its business records to conceal the commission of one or more federal election crimes. The Manhattan prosecutor, however, might also advance the theory that Trump caused the Trump Organization to falsely report the payments with the intent of committing tax fraud.
Even before reaching the merits of the legal theories being bandied about to charge Trump criminally, a public suspicious of the Get-Trump attitude seen over the last seven years will notice the statute of limitations seems to bar Bragg’s prosecution of Trump. But Bragg has two ways to sidestep the two- and five-year statutory time limits.
First, if Bragg charges Trump with a felony, the longer five-year period applies. While more than five years have passed since the Trump Organization last recorded a “legal expense” to Cohen, New York’s former governor, Andrew Cuomo, by executive order extended the statute of limitations for one year (or thereabouts) due to Covid-19. That tolling would make a felony indictment against Trump timely.
Alternatively, because New York law provides that any time a defendant remains “continuously outside” of the state is excluded from the statutory period, an indictment against Trump would be timely. From late January 2017 on, Trump was “continuously outside” New York, first in D.C. and then in Florida, meaning the statute of limitations only ran those few times Trump was in New York. That isn’t even close to the two years necessary for the misdemeanor statute of limitations to expire, much less the five-year period applicable to felony offenses.
So, the statute of limitations won’t likely bar one or more falsifying business records counts. But what about the merits?
Cohen already pleaded guilty to federal charges related to his payments to Stormy Daniels. But to convict Trump on the anticipated state charges, the Manhattan prosecutor would need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump (1) caused the Trump Organization to falsify its business records (2) “with the intent to defraud.”
From public reporting, it appears Cohen is a star witness for the prosecution, likely testifying Trump directed him to make the payments to silence Daniels and promising reimbursement from the Trump Organization. Whether a paper trail supports Cohen’s testimony is unclear, but without one, it will be Cohen’s word—the word of a convicted felon—crucial to establish the crime.
Cohen’s testimony also already appears under fire. A “former legal advisor to Cohen,” Robert Costello, reportedly testified before the grand jury on Monday, “solely to undermine” Cohen’s credibility.
But prosecutors will need to prove more than that Trump caused the Trump Organization to falsify its business records. They will need to establish he also had the “intent to defraud.” Here, the defense can easily counter that Trump’s intent was to avoid embarrassment to his family caused by what he claims is a lie, rather than to “defraud” anyone.
Should prosecutors nonetheless prove their case, it is only a misdemeanor, unless they can further establish Trump intended “to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission” of another crime. Proving either will be even more challenging.
First, to establish Trump intended to conceal a violation of federal election law, the Manhattan D.A. would need to prove Trump had committed an election-law crime. While Cohen alleged paying off Daniels to advance Trump’s electoral chances, Trump has another justification, namely avoiding any embarrassment for himself and his family, that does not run afoul of federal election law.
Proving Trump intended to commit tax fraud would likely be a difficult case to prove as well, with prosecutors needing to establish Trump’s knowledge of the intricacies of the corporation’s tax filings to show he held the requisite intent.
This inside-the-law analysis reveals an exceedingly weak case, but that is only a fraction of what the public will care about. On top of the questionable charges, the general public will see a man hounded for seven years with false claims of Russia collusion and other supposed crimes. They will see a statute of limitations that on its face appears to have run. And they will see a local prosecutor pushing charges previously rejected by a federal U.S. attorney.
Then there was the public pressure placed on Bragg to indict Trump, best exemplified by the backlash he faced after he apparently backed off charging the former president for crimes supposedly connected to the Trump Organization’s finances. At the time, “two prosecutors quit his office,” and “one of the prosecutors, Mark Pomerantz, wrote a highly critical book that the media has celebrated.”
In short, the public will see a vindictive political prosecution of Trump.
Maybe there will be a time to charge a president or a former president with a crime, but the facts here do not support making that leap. While D.A. Bragg and those pushing for Trump’s indictment may seek cover behind the well-worn American proposition that “no one is above the law,” the corollary is equally important: Our political enemies are not targeted for prosecution.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
A Georgia grand jury formally charged 15 members of a group supporting the Confederate flag on terror charges following a July confrontation with a black family who was celebrating a child’s birthday, according to an indictment released Monday.
Douglas County District Attorney Brian Fortner said members of the “Respect the Flag” group violated the state’s Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act and made terroristic threats when their caravan of vehicles bearing the rebel flag drove past a neighborhood party.
“We do want to say that we respect the rights of all citizens to exercise their First Amendment right, but we’re going to require them when they’re doing that to respect the right of all of the citizens to feel safe,” Fortner said at a news conference attended by FOX5.
The indictment, handed up on Friday, also charges two members of the group with battery for a separate incident that occurred at a gas station on the same day. While video of the Confederate convoy has made its way onto social media, there are two drastically different depictions of what occurred on July 25, with each side blaming the other for generating hostility.
This much is not in dispute: numerous pickup trucks, adorned with several large American and Confederate flags, formed a caravan and drove into a neighborhood where a birthday party was being held for a child.
Levi Bush, who was part of the procession, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in July that the motorcade was making its way back from a nearby event when it drove through the area. Kayla Norton, another member of the group, told FOX5 that party-goers began throwing objects at the trucks and making threats.
People from the birthday party contend that “Respect the Flag” participants yelled racial slurs and flashed guns.
Police were eventually called to the scene, though no one was arrested at the time.
“Officers on scene were given conflicting statements as to what led up to the confrontation,”the Douglasville Police Department said in a statement. “We do not have any evidence of any shots fired nor were there any reports of a physical altercation taking place.”
The indictment says the group threatened “to commit a crime of violence to persons attending a party”with the “purpose of terrorizing those individuals and in reckless disregard for the risk of causing such terror.”The indictment does not specify what “Respect the Flag” participants did or said to that end.
Members of “Respect the Flag” told the Washington Post the group drives around with its flags flying in order to raise money to donate American flags to people who can’t afford them.
The Confederate flag has become a hot-button topic in the wake of a June mass shooting at a black Christian church in South Carolina. The alleged perpetrator was reportedly inspired by racist propaganda and was seen in pictures with the Confederate flag. Those images led to calls to remove the symbol from public and private sites across the country, which in turn inspired a backlash from those who felt the flag symbolized Southern culture and heritage.
Robert Andrew Hansard, John Anthony Allen, Lacey Paul Henderson, Joe Eric Hood, Levi Devin Bush, Ashley Elizabeth Butler, Alexis Odell Fennell, Lacey Paul Henderson, Jose Ismael Torres, Amanda Sue Dyson, Jeffery Chad Wigley, Gregory Adam Upchurch, Scott Chapman, Thomas Charles Summers and Judy King Summers were charged with violating the state terrorism act.
Hood and Thomas Summers were charged in the battery at the gas station.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.