There’s no question that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, with their extremist ideology on the issue of abortion, the wanton destruction of unborn children, ran an administration that actually put a bull’s-eye on the backs of those who pursue pro-life goals.

They used the FBI and the Department of Justice to do that work, with charges against and prosecutions of groups and individuals who opposed the abortion industry mandates that they wanted to impose.

Now those bureaucracies have been warned by a member of Congress to keep all their records of those legal campaigns against pro-lifers.

The Daily Wire reports it is Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who has dispatched a letter to the FBI and DOJ instructing officials to preserve all records of their prosecutions of peaceful pro-lifers.

He told the FBI’s Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland there are “serious questions” lawmakers must evaluate regarding how the Biden-Harris administration turned to the “weaponization” of the FACE Act.

That law makes it a crime to block the entrance to a health business, including abortion operations.

Roy heads the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government and said, “Congress has a sacred duty to preserve the rights of the American people, including the First Amendment, against any overreach by the Executive Branch. As we examine how to best protect Americans’ fundamental freedoms, the Subcommittees must first understand how the DOJ and FBI enforce the FACE Act.”

That law is supposed to also be used to protect both churches and crisis pregnancy centers, but the Biden-Harris team used it almost exclusively to jail grandmothers and others who were defending the unborn.

Roy wrote, “Since January 2021, the Civil Rights Division has brought a total of 24 FACE Act cases against 55 defendants, with only two of these cases – consisting of five defendants – concerning attacks on pregnancy resource centers.

“You should construe this preservation notice as an instruction to take all reasonable steps to prevent the destruction or alteration, whether intentionally or negligently, of all documents, communications, and other information, including electronic information and metadata, that are or may be responsive to this congressional inquiry.”

PALM BEACH, Florida – In the wake of Joe Biden’s presidential pardon of his son Hunter, President-elect Donald Trump was asked if he will pardon himself in connection with any legal cases remaining against him.

Trump answered the question from NBC’s Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning.

“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Trump said.

“I was given the option, and the lawyers told me, very specific. I don’t have to go into who, but very high up in in the administration said, ‘Sir, if you pardon yourself, you’re going to look guilty and you did nothing wrong.’ Oh, I had that option.”

“I could have saved myself a lot of legal fees. But it turned out that I was right. Look at what’s gone on. Everything’s being dropped. I still have a Fani Willis, Fani, a total hoax. That’s a total hoax. It’s all being dropped.”

WATCH: Will Donald #Trump pardon himself? President-elect goes public

Also thrashes everybody on Jan. 6 Committee: ‘Honestly, they should go to jail’ #J6 #MeetthePress pic.twitter.com/g6vTzWiE0F

— WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily) December 8, 2024

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!

Welker also asked the president-elect about reporting that Biden is considering “preemptive pardons for some of the people who have clashed with Mr. Trump, including senator-elect Adam Schiff, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and former congressman, Liz Cheney.”

Welker said: “As part of his response, Mr. Trump lashed out at the Jan. 6th Committee, accusing it of unfairly targeting him and even of destroying its records, which the committee denies.”

“And she [Cheney] was behind it. And so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee,” Trump explained. “For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail.”

Welker asked: “So you think Liz Cheney should go to jail?”

“For what they did … I think that everybody, anybody that voted in favor,” Trump responded.

“Are you going to direct your FBI director and your attorney general to send them to jail?” Welker asked.

Trump replied: “No, not at all. I think that they’ll have to look at that, but I’m not going to, I’m gonna focus on drill, baby, drill.”

Trump was also asked if he would end birthright citizenship on Day One in office.

“Yeah, absolutely,” he said.

Welker mentioned the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution saying all persons born in the United States are citizens.

“Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?” she asked.

“We’ll have to get a change. Maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it. We’re the only country that has it,” Trump said.

“Someone sets a foot, one foot, on our land, congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America! Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.”

“Through executive action?” Welker asked.

“Well, if we can, through executive action, Trump said, then pointing to his first term in office.

“I was going to do it through executive action, but we had to fix COVID first, to be honest with you. We have to end it.”

Trump was also asked if he would he concede his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

“No. No. Why would I do that?” he responded.

The full broadcast of “Meet the Press” can be viewed here.

Follow Joe on Twitter @JoeKovacsNews

‘Just incredible’: Biden reportedly considering ‘preemptive pardons’ for Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney and Dr. Anthony Fauci

Adam Schiff, one of the most devoted adherents to the false narrative created by Democrats two elections ago that then-candidate Donald Trump was colluding with Russia, and then a devotee of ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s failed agendas to impeach and remove him, is quitting his House seat.

He’ll be taking up a role in the U.S. Senate after November’s election,.

BREAKING: Rep. Adam Schiff has resigned as a member of the House of Representatives, effective December 8, 2024 https://t.co/019wkC8oPf

— WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily) December 6, 2024

The Washington Examiner said Schiff is to be sworn into the Senate next week.

The report said Schiff ends a 24-year tenure in the House “with a reputation as a chief antagonist to President-elect Donald Trump, leading the first House impeachment involving withholding aid to Ukraine in return for investigations of Hunter Biden.”

Because he “misused intelligence for political purposes,” according to then-Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Schiff was stripped of his position on the intelligence committee.

“In June 2023, Republicans voted to censure Schiff, and McCarthy delivered a public reprimand that said Schiff misled the public during congressional investigations into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Trump this year referred to Schiff as ‘an enemy from within,’ fueling speculation that President Joe Biden should issue preemptive pardons for Schiff and others to shield them from Trump’s possible legal retribution,” the report explained.

Schiff beat Reps. Katie Porter, D-Calif., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., in a primary and then won the election to replace the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Because the position was open, Schiff is being installed before the rest of the newly elected senators, meaning he will have “seniority” over others who will be installed in January.

A few weeks ago, columnist Rachel Alexander in a commentary at WND said, “It is no secret that far-left California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff uses sleazy tactics to go after his political opponents. While most members of Congress usually skate on ethics charges or receive light penalties, once in a great while their behavior is so overtly criminal that they end up prosecuted. Although Democrats are far more likely to use lawfare against Republicans than vice versa, when the behavior is so criminal, even Democrats – such as New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez who is being prosecuted for bribery – can’t escape justice.

She continued, “Schiff is getting dangerously close to this stage. When he became chair of the House Intelligence Committee in 2019, he made it a personal mission to investigate Donald Trump’s supposed connections to Russia, completely separate from and in addition to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“When Mueller concluded there was no collusion between Trump and Russia, Schiff dismissively blew off the exoneration, hinting that he would continue his own investigation. ‘[T]here may be, for example, evidence of collusion or conspiracy that is clear and convincing, but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt,’ he said during an interview in February 2019.”

Schiff’s agenda has triggered complaints to the Office of Congressional Ethics, and the full House noted he “misled the public by reading a false retelling of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.”

The column also noted Schiff “paid the daughter of the judge handling New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Trump $4 million to push the Russia collusion hoax. Loren Merchan’s hatred of Trump is so extreme that she used a photo of Trump behind bars as her profile picture on X. She runs a digital marketing agency that works with Democrats and progressive groups.

And he hasn’t changed, the commentary said.

“While running for the U.S. Senate, Schiff has brazenly engaged in sleazy tactics. He spent $10 million promoting his Republican opponent during the primary. Since California uses ‘top 2’ voting, which means the top two vote getters in the primary move on to the general, he wanted to ensure that Republican Steve Garvey ended up with the second-most votes instead of his two Democratic challengers. On the campaign trail, Schiff brags about his political persecution of Trump as a campaign platform.”

Previously, Schiff admitted he feared that a Trump administration might prosecute him.

Republican Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas and acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe got in a screaming match over Rowe’s attendance at a 9/11 memorial event during a Thursday congressional hearing.

The House of Representatives established the Task Force on Trump Assassination Attempts following two attempts on the life of former President Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign. Rowe was testifying at a hearing held by the task force when Fallon questioned his attendance at an event commemorating 9/11, asking if he was in charge of President Joe Biden’s detail at the event after Rowe claimed that the head of the president’s Secret Service detail was usually the “closest” to the president.

“Actually, congressman, what you’re not seeing is the [Special Agent in Charge] of the detail off out of the picture’s view, and that is the day where we remember the more than 3,000 people that died on 9/11,” Rowe said after Fallon displayed an image showing the Secret Service director standing near Biden. “I actually responded to Ground Zero. I was there going through the ashes at the World Trade Center. I was there for rescues.”

“I’m not asking you that!” Fallon responded.

WATCH:

“Do not invoke 9/11 for political purposes!” Rowe shouted, with Fallon yelling “No, I’m not!” in response, leading to a continued shouting match.

“Don’t try to bully me,” Fallon told Rowe. “Don’t try and bully me. I am an elected member of Congress, and I am asking a serious question and you are playing politics.”

Rowe said he attended the event to honor a Secret Service agent who died during the attack, which killed 72 law enforcement officers across eight agencies, including the New York Police Department, the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey Police Department, the FBI and the Secret Service. Master Special Officer Craig James Miller was the lone Secret Service officer killed on the day of the attack, according to a listing maintained by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, while a second officer is listed as having died from 9/11-related health issues.

This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Thursday that Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney recently did damage to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in her 2020 election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump.

McBurney on Monday mandated Willis hand over any communications records she has with special counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6 Select Committee within five business days, according to a court order. Turley, on “The Faulkner Focus,” said the case has numerous issues and that McBurney’s order was a “fairly large blow to Willis.”

WATCH:

“This entire case is leaking like a sieve. And it always has because it was based on, in my view, a ridiculous RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations] theory to get to the president,” Turley said. “There are some crimes in this case, I think they’re relatively minor, against some defendants, like unauthorized access, but to get the president, they had to create this real Rube Goldberg type of racketeering theory that I don’t think will hold up upon review. And on top of that, you have Willis’ own conduct and whether she should be removed from the case.”

“So it’s a big debate as to what will bring the case down, but there are a lot of possibilities here. Now, the fact is that courts tended to try to leave these to juries, leave these to fact finders and so Willis knows she has an advantage,” he continued. “But just keep in mind that this entire case is teetering in my view legally. And I just can’t see even if she was able to secure a conviction that she would be able to sustain it on appeal. But I don’t believe the case should go to jury. I don’t think it should go to trial. I think it’s a laughable case against the former president.”

Host Martha MacCallum asked Turley for his opinion of Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee, prompting the law professor to not discuss McBurney’s order.

“He has shown, I think, a fair degree of balance here,” Turley added, appearing to reference McAfee. “I’ve had a lot of respect for some of the decisions he’s reached. So I have no objection to him as a judge. My objection is the underlying case.”

Trump’s attorneys requested that the state of Georgia dismiss Willis’ indictment against him in a Wednesday filing. Willis charged Trump, along with 18 others, in August 2023 for breaching its RICO Act by allegedly attempting to reverse the state’s 2020 election outcome.

The president-elect’s attorneys argued that maintaining the case is unconstitutional and “lacks jurisdiction” as presidents are “completely immune” from state or federal indictments while in office.

This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Someone working inside of Jack Smith’s lawfare cases against former and now President-elect Donald Trump reported “possible misconduct” going on, but an investigation into that issue, dated more than a year ago, has been stalled to date because Smith said a review would affect his investigations of Trump.

Those cases now, of course, have been ended by Trump’s election to the White House in last month’s vote.

So Congress is trying to get that review going again.

The revelations come from House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who confirmed the Department of Justice recently briefed the committee on an internal investigation it had opened into Smith’s operations.

According to Washington Examiner, Jordan has been dissatisfied with what apparently is a campaign to block Congress from getting the information it wants, and addressed that concern in a letter to Jeffrey Ragsdale, counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility, who was told to provide documents on the issues at hand within days.

Jordan, in the letter, pointed out the committee already had asked for documents relating to allegations Smith and his team “lied to a federal court, manipulated evidence seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during its raid of Mar-a-Lago, and improperly pressured a lawyer representing a defendant indicted by Smith.” Those charges all have surfaced through various venues in recent months.

Further, there have been claims J.P. Cooney, on Smith’s team, “intentionally sought to impose an ‘unprecedented’ and ‘excessive’ prison sentence upon a criminal defendant, and then spread false conspiracy theories when his supervisors overruled his recommendation.”

All of this was held in abeyance because Smith insisted any revelations about misbehavior in his staff would affect the lawfare cases he was creating against Trump at the time, the letter explained.

“You stated that Smith only allowed the investigation to begin because it would now no longer ‘interfere with the Special Counsel’s investigation and prosecution.’ It is absurd that OPR—the Department entity charged with upholding ethical conduct—would only examine allegations of prosecutorial misconduct after the subject of the allegations has approved the inquiry,” Jordan wrote.

Jordan said one of the concerns was that “these attorneys” would be able “to evade internal accountability by leaving the Department.”

DOJ briefs House GOP on internal inquiry into Jack Smith misconduct allegationshttps://t.co/d3CP7JIPeV

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) December 5, 2024

The Examiner reported, “It is unclear what the nature of the misconduct was, but it is normal for attorneys to self-report to the DOJ’s personnel office if they are aware of allegations being made about them in the media or elsewhere.”

And it documented that Jordan has been trying to get records from Ragsdale since earlier this year regarding “various ethics allegations against Smith and the attorneys working for him.”

For example, one allegation involves Jay Bratt and “was first raised in court by an attorney representing Walt Nauta, one of the co-defendants in the classified documents case against Trump. The attorney, Stanley Woodward, said that during a closed-door meeting, Bratt inappropriately brought up Woodward’s application to become a judge while Bratt was trying to convince Woodward to comply with him in the Trump case. Smith has disputed the accusation,” the Examiner explained.

Citing Joe Biden’s complaint, delivered while he was issuing a massive pardon to his son Hunter for crimes committed, about unfair prosecutions, lawyers for President-elect Donald Trump pointed to that very factor in a case involving the president-elect before New York Judge Juan Merchan and insisted it be dismissed immediately.

The case was brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and concerned business records from years ago. Those apparent violations would have been misdemeanors had they been brought before the statute of limitations expired.

But they weren’t, so Bragg claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of another unidentified crime. It’s described as the “hush money” case because it involved payments to a porn star for keeping claims of an affair private.

A report from Fox News said lawyers for Trump have demanded the case be dismissed “immediately.”

“President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits this motion to dismiss the Indictment and vacate the jury’s verdicts…,” the lawyers wrote. “The Presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act, and the Supremacy Clause all require that result, and they require it immediately.”

They noted Biden’s claim that Hunter was prosecuted “unfairly” for his crimes, including gun charges on which he was convicted and tax violations to which he pleaded guilty.

“Yesterday, in issuing a 10-year pardon to Hunter Biden that covers any and all crimes whether charged or uncharged, President Biden asserted that his son was ‘selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,’ and ‘treated differently.’ President Biden argued that ‘raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.'”

In reality, the charged, it was this “same DOJ that coordinated and oversaw the politically-motivated, election-interference witch hunts targeting President Trump by disgraced Special Counsel Jack Smith, the other biased prosecutors in Smith’s Special Counsel’s Office (“SCO”), and others. This is the same DOJ that sent Matthew Colangelo to DA Bragg to help unfairly target President Trump in this empty and lawless case. Since DA Bragg took office, he has engaged in ‘precisely the type of political theater’ that President Biden condemned.”

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung charged, “President Trump and his legal team have filed a powerhouse motion to dismiss once and for all the unconstitutional and politically motivated Manhattan DA Hoax. This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed, as President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt.”

The case proved to have one scandal after another, as Merchan repeatedly ruled against Trump as the judge’s daughter was working with Democrats, raising money on the rulings her father made in the courtroom.

Further, the judge was known to have donated money to Democrats, and he refused to recuse himself despite the apparent conflicts of interest present in the case.

Fani Willis, a local prosecutor in Atlanta, Georgia, who assembled her claims of an organized crime scheme against now President-elect Donald Trump and other defendants with the help of a paramour she put on a taxpayer-funded salary, now is in more trouble.

Her case, hanging on by a threat at an appeals court, is essentially the only case remaining against Trump after he was elected last month and multiple other lawfare cases were dismissed.

But now, Judicial Watch confirms that she’s been found by a court in default after refusing to comply with the Georgia Open Records Act.

Judicial Watch had sought, through the state’s legal process regarding records, to obtain information about Willis’ coordination with “special counsel” Jack Smith, appointed by the Department of Justice to carry that part of the Democrat Party’s lawfare against Trump, cases that now have been dismissed.

Also, records were sought about Willis’ coordination with ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s partisan January 6 investigating committee, which concealed exculpatory information about President Trump’s involvement that day, and tried to portray the events as an actual insurrection against the U.S., when in fact it was a protest that turned into a minor riot with most of the aftermath involve repairs of vandalism.

Judge Robert C.K. McBurney in Fulton County Superior Court said Willis had a number of options in responding to the records case, but did “none of that.”

“Plaintiff is thus entitled to judgment by default as if every item and paragraph of the complaint were supported by proper and sufficient evidence. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-55(a). Here, this means Plaintiff has established that Defendant violated the ORA by failing to either turn over responsive records or else notify Plaintiff of her decision to withhold some or all such records. In its complaint, Plaintiff sought the following relief: 1) a declaration that Defendant has violated the ORA; 2) an order for Defendant to search for all records responsive to Plaintiff’s request without further delay; 3) an injunction ordering Defendant to cease withholding non-exempt public records responsive to the request; 4) an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-73(b); 5) a writ of mandamus, ordering Defendant to provide the requested records; and 6) any other relief the Court deems proper.”

The judge wrote, “By finding Defendant in default, the Court has in effect declared that she has violated the ORA. The Court also hereby ORDERS Defendant to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials within five business days of the entry of this Order. Within that same five day period, Defendant is ORDERED to provide Plaintiff with copies of all responsive records that are not legally exempted or excepted from disclosure. If Defendant is required or decides to withhold all or part of a requested record, she should follow the procedures set forth in the ORA (see O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(d)). If the records are stored electronically, they may be produced electronically in a commonly used format such as PDF. The Court expects that such production will include the correspondence identified by Plaintiff in its complaint. If it does not, Defendant is further ORDERED to provide an explanation why such correspondence does not exist in Defendant’s records (or why it is being withheld).”

Judicial Watch’s request for fees and costs will be addressed during a Dec. 20 hearing.

Judicial Watch said its lawsuit, dating back to last March, came after Willis denied having any records responsive to the request for communications with Jack Smith and more.

The New York Post reported only days ago Willis’ case against Trump isn’t likely to survive much longer.

It noted her claims against Trump, accusing him alleged election interference in Georgia, likely will vanish soon.

The report said Willis “has remained defiant and ignored a subpoena in September from a special senate committee looking into the case, refusing to show up for a hearing when was supposed to testify. Last week, a Georgia appeals court abruptly canceled oral arguments scheduled for next month in the case and Trump’s lawyers are likely cite the federal end to the election interference charges against him to get the Georgia case thrown out.”

One Post source said, ‘I would be shocked if it wasn’t (dismissed) but Fani has an ego bigger than the entire state so who knows.”

Willis appointed her then-paramour Nathan Wade as a special prosecutor in her case against Trump – and paid him hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.

He was ordered to leave the case earlier when a judge cited the appearance of impropriety in Willis’ workings.

“Fani Willis is something else. We’ve been doing this work for 30 years, and this is the first time in our experience a government official has been found in default for not showing up in court to answer an open records lawsuit.,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

“Judicial Watch looks forward to getting any documents from the Fani Willis operation about collusion with the Biden administration and Nancy Pelosi’s Congress on her unprecedented and compromised ‘get-Trump’ prosecution.”

Democratic Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin on CNN Sunday said he had not seen “proof” the FBI was being weaponized against one political party, while calling out President-elect Donald Trump’s pick of Kash Patel as his FBI director.

Trump announced Saturday his plans to replace current FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom he appointed during his first term, with Patel, whom he said would help the agency “end the growing crime epidemic in America, dismantle the migrant criminal gangs, and stop the evil scourge of human and drug trafficking across the border.” On “State of the Union,” guest host Kasie Hunt began by asking for Raskin’s reaction to Trump’s pick.

“Well, Christopher Wray, of course, is a Republican, appointed by a Republican, as he has said. But apparently he has demonstrated too much independence and objectivity in the job for Donald Trump, who wants much more of a personal loyalist in the position, and that’s why he’s gone to Kash Patel,” Raskin said.

Hunt then jumped in and questioned the Democratic lawmaker on whether he believed there were “any issues” inside the FBI under its current leadership, to which Raskin did not deny historically, but claimed there was no current proof for one party being targeted, as he listed Democrats who had been charged federally.

WATCH:

“If you look at it historically, for example, during the Cohen-Telpro period, the FBI really was weaponized against Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement and the Peace Movement. There was decades of the FBI being basically used as a political instrument. There’s an interesting book about that, about J. Edgar Hoover by Beverly Gage, and people can look at,” Raskin said.

“I haven’t seen what the proof is that the FBI has been weaponized against a political party — or the Department of Justice. Of course, this Department of Justice has brought charges against a Democratic U.S. senator in New Jersey, a Democratic congressman in Texas. Some people just seem to think that it should go only in one direction, and if it doesn’t, then somehow it’s politicized. I think that’s what they mean when they talk about politicization in the deep state,” Raskin added. “I mean, the deep state, nobody’s ever defined it. Apparently, it just means anybody who doesn’t do the will of Donald Trump.”

With Americans’ attitudes toward the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) on the decline, Wray faced increased backlash after the first assassination attempt against Trump at his Pennsylvania rally on July 13. During a hearing with the House Judiciary Committee after the attack, Wray told lawmakers, “With respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that, you know, hit his ear.”

Republicans have long criticized the FBI director for his alleged “political bias” in investigations like Hunter Biden’s, with Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley demanding information from Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland in a letter from July 2022. The letter followed allegations from two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistleblowers that the DOJ had slow-walked criminal investigations into Hunter’s alleged unpaid taxes from 2017 and 2018.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

President-elect Donald Trump faced four criminal cases during the 2024 election, but his risk of imprisonment has vanished after securing the presidency, confirming predictions from several legal experts.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s two federal cases against Trump are no longer moving forward, and the president-elect’s two state cases are likely to be dismissed as well. Legal experts on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News all accurately analyzed certain aspects of the cases that ultimately worked in Trump’s favor.

A Manhattan jury in May convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records, but the president-elect has yet to face sentencing, despite it initially being scheduled for July 11. The Supreme Court’s July 1 presidential immunity ruling prompted months of delays.

Judge Juan Merchan, who presides over the case, initially rescheduled the sentencing for Sept. 18. CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig in late August asserted the Sept. 18 date was “very much in question as to whether we actually will see a sentence.”

Trump had requested earlier in August to postpone the sentencing date past the November election. Merchan pushed it to Nov. 26 “if necessary,” according to a Sept. 6 order.

The judge then indefinitely delayed Trump’s sentencing after his election victory, setting a Dec. 2 deadline for the defense to file its motion to dismiss the case and directing prosecutors to submit their response by Dec. 9.

Trump also faced four felony counts from Smith pertaining to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, but Honig said there was no possibility a trial would occur before the 2024 election shortly after the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.

“This case will not go before the election. It will not be tried before the election, and here’s why. Supreme Court has just said there is such thing as criminal immunity,” Honig said. “The test, as we anticipated, essentially, official acts versus unofficial acts. We’re sending it back to the district court. And this is an important detail. The court says several times, whatever the district court finds can be appealed before trial.”

“Jack Smith had made an argument of well, maybe the district judge, the trial judge can work it out and send it to the jury. And then the jury can separate official from unofficial acts,” he continued. “Several times in this opinion, the Supreme Court, the majority, says explicitly: whatever the judge decides about what’s official or unofficial, what’s immune or not immune, that can be appealed back up. 0% chance that happens before November.”

WATCH:

‘0% Chance’: CNN’s Elie Honig Torpedoes Dems’ Hopes Trump Trial Will Occur Before Election pic.twitter.com/aHpC3zhCSl

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 1, 2024

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, rejected Trump’s effort to dismiss it in December and originally scheduled a trial for March. The case never came to trial and Chutkan granted Smith’s request on Monday to toss the case, with the special counsel citing Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines that state the case must be dropped before Trump’s inauguration.

Moreover, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ election interference case against Trump is anticipated to collapse as she still faces disqualification while a state appeals court considers defendants’ arguments. Willis allegedly improperly benefited financially from appointing special prosecutor Nathan Wade to the case, with their relationship derailing the case in January.

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos in February criticized Willis’ performance during her testimony at a hearing on whether she should be disqualified from her case. He said although her testimony aligned with Wade’s, that did not make her “credible.”

“Do I think that Fani Willis was a good witness? No, not by any metric by which you measure witnesses who testify in court,” Cevallos asserted.

“I’m not saying there’s any evidence of criminality here, obviously, but is it credible just because Fani Willis and Nathan Wade have their stories straight? Is it credible that after these two in a romantic relationship went on trips to Aruba, that the district attorney pulled out an envelope of sweaty cash and peeled off thousands of dollars and handed it to him?” he asked. “Is that credible? Well, I ask you, any of you have been on trips with your romantic paramours, did you do that after you got back from the trip? Peel off a wad of cash and repay them for it? I have yet to find someone who has done that.”

Judge Scott McAfee declined to outright disqualify Willis in March, instead offering prosecutors the choice to have Wade withdraw or have the district attorney and her entire office step aside. Wade subsequently resigned from the case.

Judge Aileen Cannon in July dismissed Smith’s classified documents case against Trump in Florida after finding the special counsel had been unconstitutionally appointed. Smith on Monday moved to dismiss his appeal of the ruling as it pertains to Trump following his election victory.

George Washington University law professor and Fox News Media contributor Jonathan Turley accurately predicted that Smith would appeal the case and that the process would not be resolved by the November election.

“People are attacking Judge Cannon viciously, often citing the fact that she was a Trump appointee, ignoring the fact that Trump appointees have regularly ruled against the former president,” Turley said. “Those attacks are probably going to increase. But for now, this is a great day … This is the one they were most worried about.”

This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Alexander Vindman, an ex-Army officer whose speculations and claims about President Trump were turned by Democrats into their first, and failed, attempt to impeach and remove him from office, is in the headlines again.

This time he’s accusing Elon Musk of being a puppet of Russian President Vladimir Putin, doing his bidding and giving him American secrets.

Alexander Vindman has accused Elon Musk of divulging state secrets to Vladimir Putin, and that the real reason he supports Trump is because Putin ordered him to do so. pic.twitter.com/WAFjL3RKue

— Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) November 27, 2024

Vindman is on the payroll of Ukrainian oligarchs and has committed treason against the United States, for which he will pay the appropriate penalty

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 27, 2024

It might not end up going so well for Vindman, as Musk responded with an accusation that Vindman has committed treason and will pay the appropriate penalty.

The Washington Examiner said, “Vindman is mainly known for testifying against President-elect Donald Trump during the Trump-Ukraine scandal in 2019.”

Vindman accused Trump of trying to use the presidential power against a political opponent, asking Ukraine to investigate the corruption involving Burisma, an energy company there, and its payments of a million dollars to Hunter Biden.

In fact, evidence now shows that Joe Biden used his influence as vice president to get rid of a prosecutor investigating Burisma during the time his son was on Burisma’s payroll.

However, Vindman said it was awful that Trump suggested that be investigated. Democrats turned it into an impeachment attempt.

Musk now has been nominated by Trump to serve on his new Department of Government Efficiency.

Vindman claimed, before the election, “Putin has been very effective in playing both Trump and Elon, and he’s been using the richest man in the world to do his bidding. In some cases, that’s encouraging him probably to support Donald Trump. That’s not speculation. We see how far in Elon has gone and then using Twitter as a disinformation platform. This is not some sort of far-off, distant threat. This is going to impact our elections, it’s a national security threat.”

Vindman accused Musk of “divulging state secrets to Vladimir Putin, and that the real reason he supports Trump is because Putin ordered him to do,” the report said.

“Vindman is on the payroll of Ukrainian oligarchs and has committed treason against the United States, for which he will pay the appropriate penalty,” Musk said.

Vindman, removed from his position during the first Trump administration after he made his accusations against the president, has been politically active since, often making extraordinary claims against Trump.

In 2022, he sued several Trump allies, alleging that they had intimidated and retaliated against him while he testified in Congress, but the action failed.

A report at the Gateway Pundit noted Vindman “was a crucial figure in the first impeachment of President Trump over his ‘perfect’ phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019.”

“But he was caught repeatedly lying during his testimony before Congress, which made him a leftist hero,” the report said. “The truth is that Vindman was a leaker who thought his opinions overruled the Trump administration. He was moved from the White House with his twin brother (who was unfortunately elected to Congress this month) after his unsuccessful attempt, along with Eric Ciaramella, to remove the sitting president from office.”

The report noted, “Even Vindman’s boss testified that he was a leaker and a liar who could not be trusted.”

Now, the report said, he’s followed with a “disgusting smear” toward Musk.

MSNBC legal analyst Kristy Greenberg said Monday that special counsel Jack Smith’s move to dismiss his case against President-elect Donald Trump leaves open the “possibility” for later prosecution.

Smith wrote in a Monday filing that previous opinions by the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) “apply to this situation” requiring dismissal ahead of Trump’s inauguration. Greenberg, on “Chris Jansing Reports,” read from the filing, arguing the special counsel’s language suggests he may seek to prosecute Trump after his presidency.

WATCH:

“In this motion, Jack Smith says that yes, ‘the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of immunity afforded to a sitting president, it doesn’t require dismissal with prejudice,’” Greenberg said. “And then goes on to say, ‘immunity from prosecution for sitting president would not preclude such prosecution once the president’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by [resignation] or impeachment.’ So there is a possibility here that potentially he could be prosecuted down the line.”

“There’s a real question whether or not the statute of limitations would be tolled because he actually cannot be prosecuted for this period of time,” she added. “But the real question for me will be whether or not when the new AG [attorney general] comes in — what’s not clear is if Judge [Tanya] Chutkan will actually rule on this motion right away or if she will wait for the new AG, who may take a different position and may say this should be dismissed with prejudice, meaning then it’s completely over, there’s no way to bring this back after he is done with his term.”

Greenberg suggested she would anticipate Trump’s incoming attorney general to support the case being dismissed with prejudice.

“The fact Jack Smith kind of left the window open here, I think, is interesting,” she added.

Smith asked Chutkan to pause all deadlines in his election interference case shortly after Trump won the election to enable prosecutors to evaluate their next steps. He indicted Trump in August 2023 for alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, spending months attempting to accelerate the case and even asking the Supreme Court to hear Trump’s presidential immunity appeal before the lower court.

The case experienced months of delays as the Supreme Court considered Trump’s appeal, ultimately deciding in July that former presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken in office. Smith subsequently filed a superseding indictment alleging that Trump acted outside of his official duties.

Chutkan allowed Smith to file a lengthy motion, including evidence against Trump, on the public docket in the weeks before the election. Trump’s attorneys characterized the special counsel’s efforts to publish the materials as election interference.

“The American People re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again,” Trump communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement. “Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law. The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”

This is the end: Jack Smith gives up on agenda to jail Trump

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to reflect Judge Chutkan has granted the dismissal motion.

For years, Jack Smith, appointed “special counsel” by officials in the Department of Justice to handle some of the Democrats’ lawfare cases against President Trump, has tried to put the former, and incoming, president in jail.

He’s now apparently giving up.

Just the News confirms Smith has filed a motion in court Monday to drop all four felony charges against Trump.

Trump reacted on Truth Social, stating: “These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought. Over $100 Million Dollars of Taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party’s fight against their Political Opponent, ME.

“Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before. They have also used State Prosecutors and District Attorneys, such as Fani Willis and her lover, Nathan Wade (who had absolutely zero experience in cases such as this, but was paid MILLIONS, enough for them to take numerous trips and cruises around the globe!), Letitia James, who inappropriately, unethically, and probably illegally, campaigned on ‘GETTING TRUMP’ in order to win Political Office, and Alvin Bragg, who himself never wanted to bring this case against me, but was forced to do so by the Justice Department and the Democrat Party.

“It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The counts related to Trump’s challenges to the suspicious results from the 2020 presidential election, which was subjected to undue influences from several outside sources.

One of those was Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to hand out $400 million plus to local elections officials who often used it to recruit voters in Democrat districts. The other was the FBI’s decision to interfere by falsely labeling the true information about Biden family scandals found in Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as Russian disinformation.

A later survey suggested that factor alone could have cost Trump that re-election bid.

The charges were “conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights,” the report said.

CNN reported that Trump already had announced plans to fire Smith once he is inaugurated in January, describing Smith’s work as among a number of “witch hunts” sponsored by Democrats against him.

Smith explained, “The (Justice) Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

Smith’s campaign against Trump set a number of precedents, as never before has a former president faced federal criminal charges, and the agenda gave rise to discussion of the possibility that outgoing presidents now could face a number of charges leveled by their successors.

For example, still not fully investigated is what members of Congress already have confirmed as an influence peddling scheme operated by the Biden family.

The case against Trump involved a Supreme Court ruling that Trump enjoys great presidential immunity for official actions while in office, and some immunity for other actions.

Smith claimed that the “merits” of the prosecution still existed.

It was a leftist, anti-Trump judge in Washington, Tanya Chutkan, who verbally had criticized Trump’s actions, who had been deciding how much of Trump’s conduct on which the case was based was shielded by immunity.

When the Supreme Court ruling came out, the prosecutors adjusted their filings to claim that all of Trump’s actions were as “an individual.”

Chutkan followed later in the day with a ruling that dropped the case.

“The government has moved to dismiss the superseding Indictment without prejudice,” Chutkan wrote in a decision. “Defendant does not oppose the Motion…and the court will grant it.”

The filing, “without prejudice,” means the charges theoretically could be resurrected at some point later.

Smith also has moved to drop his appeal in his classified records case against Trump – a case that was dismissed earlier.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said it is a “major victory for the rule of law.’

“The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country,” he confirmed.

Smith’s other claims, that Trump violated the law by having government documents with him after he left the presidency, most recently was pending at an appeals court.

Of course, this is the same issue for which Joe Biden was investigated, and the prosecutor there gave Biden a pass. Further, prosecutors found former Vice President Mike Pence also had government documents and gave him a pass.

Those circumstances supported the Trump team contention that the federal government was being weaponized against him, since the cases clearly were based on different standards.

Still in limbo, however, are state cases against Trump that were part of the Democrats’ lawfare, a business records conviction in New York as well as the wild claim that he was guilty of fraud – even though the supposed victims testified in court none of them lost anything and his actions were standard for the business, and they would like to do business with him again.

Smith’s claims essentially alleged that Trump’s’ opinions about the 2020 election constituted an attempt to overthrow the government.

Smith’s complaint about Trump’s possession of government papers had been dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon after she ruled Smith was improperly appointed to his role.

Smith appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals trying to get the case reinstated.

Trump earlier said he would fire Smith and his entire team and then use the DOJ to investigate the 2020 election.

There are dozens of lawyers and staff members involved in Smith’s campaign against Trump.

WATCH: Network legal analyst says Jack Smith ‘left the window open’ to prosecuting Trump ‘down the line’

The United Kingdom signaled on Monday that it would arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he paid a visit to the country.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest on Thursday, arguing that he had violated international law and committed humanitarian crimes in his oversight of Israel’s ongoing war against Hamas in Gaza. The U.K. is one of the countries that has said that it will abide by the ICC’s ruling.

“We are signatories to the Rome Statute, we have always been committed to our obligations under international law and international humanitarian law,” U.K. Foreign Minister David Lammy told reporters during an international summit in Italy on Monday. “Of course, if there were to be such a visit to the UK, there would be a court process and due process would be followed in relation to those issues.”

Israel does not, will not, recognize the validity of this decision. We will continue to do everything we must do to defend our citizens and to defend our state against Iran’s axis of terror. Iran and its terrorist proxies, which include Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others.

— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) November 21, 2024

Lammy’s comments are similar to those made by U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office on Friday.

“The U.K. will always comply with its legal obligations as set out by domestic law and indeed international law,” a spokesperson for Starmer said.

The U.K. is not the only Western nation that has vowed to follow the ICC’s ruling should Netanyahu travel to their countries. Canada, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Austria and Hungary have all said with certainty that they would arrest Netanyahu if given the opportunity.

“We stand up for international law, and we will abide by all the regulations and rulings of the international courts,” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday. “This is just who we are as Canadians.”

The ICC had been pushing for Netanyahu’s arrest since May, and countries that have agreed to follow the court’s decisions — of which there are 124 — present a risk to Netanyahu if he chooses to travel to any of them. The U.S. and some other nations have said they will not follow the ICC’s decision or arrest Netanyahu.

The ICC has no mechanism to enforce its rulings on its own, instead relying on other countries to enforce its decisions.

“The ICC issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous,” President Joe Biden said in a statement on Thursday. “We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

Netanyahu’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

An insider has confirmed Democrat plans for a “shadow” government, or “shadow cabinet,” that would have the goal of undermining America’s elected president, Donald Trump.

“You are now starting to see spots of messaging of how they plan to challenge the agenda of President-elect Trump. Last week, one-term House Member Wiley Nickel, D-N.C., in what can only be described as a Democrat fever dream, proposed a ‘shadow cabinet’ which appears to be either a desperate attempt to retain power or secure his place as a talking head on whatever is left of mainstream media,” explained Ami Sanchez, a life-long Democrat, in a commentary at Human Events.

“There are Left-wing organizations forming and a network of existing organizations picking up the ‘shadow government’ banner and calling for opposition to the agenda of Trump while making plans to defeat him before he even takes office.”

WND had reported earlier on plans by Nickel, who did not seek reelection and is leaving Congress, for the “shadow” operations and operatives.

House Democrats are denying the results of the 2024 election.

They are trying to form a “shadow government” to defy and undermine President Trump’s authority.

The Democratic Party is trying to lead an unconstitutional “insurrection” against Trump.pic.twitter.com/80x71y77HG

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 15, 2024

Social media commenters wondered, “This sounds like a threat to our democracy,” and “Just start your own damn country why don’t ya?”

Also, “Treason,” and “This guy needs to be arrested for inciting division in Congress.”

A report at the Gateway Pundit, which reposted the Nickel comments, said, “Democrats and Trump-haters in the DC Swamp went to great lengths to hide their efforts to destroy President Trump, his family, individuals associated with his campaign, his top administration officials, and eventually, his supporters from 2016 to October 2024. This time around, Democrats apparently aren’t going to hide their plans to thwart the President and his administration.”

It called the video, previously posted by independent journalist Kyle Becker, “disturbing.”

Nickel proposed Sen. Adam Schiff as a shadow attorney general, Rep. Jahanna Hayes as shadow education secretary, Rep. Greg Meeks as shadow secretary of state, and more.

The Gateway Pundit said, “They are trying to form a “shadow government” to defy and undermine President Trump’s authority. The Democratic Party is trying to lead an unconstitutional ‘insurrection’ against Trump.”

As part of the Democrat Party’s ongoing attempts to divide America, Democrat @RepWileyNickel proposes a Democrat-led “Shadow Government” to opposes every move of every member of Trump’s cabinet. pic.twitter.com/3CRHZH7TLJ

— PattyMI (@PattyLovesTruth) November 15, 2024

Nickel did not run for re-election this year, and his seat quickly was snapped up by a Republican.

At Human Events, Sanchez confessed to being “a former Democrat Senate staffer and a former campaign junkie who has spent time working for and with Left-wing grassroots organizations and causes for 15 years.”

She voted, this year, for Donald Trump “because I believe in his ability to dismantle government bureaucracy, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies so that they cannot be used as a weapon against American citizens.”

And she warns leftists “have been working. Behind the scenes, they have been organizing, ready to defeat a Trump administration agenda.”

She also pointed to leftist tech companies “like Movement Labs” as part of the scheming to fight expected plans that would require federal employees to do their jobs, and just that.

“In other words, they believed that agencies and civil servants working within those agencies would be required to do their jobs, and would no longer be allowed to use their positions towards their own ends or the ends of their party,” the commentary said.

She said there also are state-level activists, such as leftist Colorado’s leftist Gov. Jared Polis, who is part of a new “Governors Safeguarding Democracy” ideology.

An entertainer appearing on MSNBC has stunned the American public by confirming a couple of things about the incoming Donald Trump administration, and specifically his choice for attorney general: former Florida AG Pam Bondi.

Democrats should be in fear.

Because she’s “competent.”

“Occasionally, attorneys general try to behave like they are not the personal lawyer of the President of the United States. That is completely out the window. Pam Bondi is exactly what I was saying in the last segment that we should all fear, because she’s competent,” explained MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson.

“We may not agree with her ideologically, but she actually knows how to do this job. So if anyone on the Democratic side or anyone who cared about liberty or justice was thinking ‘Well maybe Matt Gaetz will screw this up and that will give us time,’ no. Pam Bondi knows what she is doing.”

He cited her accomplishments in Florida: “She knows what she’s doing about immigration. Remember, Florida is one of those states that has been very aggressive about migrants and deportation and moving people to different states and everything else like that. Florida has enacted all sorts of rules and laws to curtail students and what they can do on campuses and finding legal justifications for manipulating education money.”

He charged, “She is a dangerous and effective pick, and that’s frankly worse than what we would have got with Matt Gaetz, even with the deplorable moral background that he has.”

Gaetz, formerly a member of the House, withdrew his name after Trump’s nomination because of a firestorm that erupted when Democrats tried to resurrect accusations against him that previously were dismissed by the Department of Justice.

MSNBC is losing its mind over Trump’s AG pick as Pam Bondi already because they know she will be easily confirmed

“We should all fear [her] because she’s competent.”

pic.twitter.com/VehRNpmJbL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 22, 2024

Social media understood a lot from Johnson’s admission.

“Nooooooo! This lady is competent! We can’t have that! REEEEE!” wrote one.

Explained a commentary at Twitchy, “OH, NO! Competence in government officials? No wonder the left fears her so much. They’re not used to that sort of thing after four years of Joe Biden’s disastrous administration.”

It continued, “Gaetz may have been Trump’s ‘wild card’ pick, but on paper, Bondi is an even better choice. She has an impeccable resume for the job, having been a prominent prosecutor in Hillsborough County, Florida, before becoming the state’s first female Attorney General, serving from 2011 to 2019. After her tenure, she also served on Trump’s impeachment defense team, infuriating the left with her accurate allegations of Biden family corruption with respect to Ukraine. Yep. We love her already.”

Another commenter added,” This is so funny. Democrats: ‘WE CAN’T HAVE COMPETENCE! THE HORROR!'”

A New York trial court judge, Juan Merchan, has decided to allow President-elect Donald Trump’s lawyers file a motion to dismiss Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s lawfare case against the former, and future, president.

The case is one of multiple legal wars launched against Trump by Democrats between his non-consecutive terms as president. They involved a wide range of allegations, some on shaky grounds at best, and most are in various stages of disappearing at this point.

It was Bragg who took claims of business reporting errors that would have been misdemeanors had they been brought before the statute of limitations expired. But Bragg claimed they were felonies because they were in pursuit of another, unnamed, crime, so Trump still could be charged. Then Merchan told the jury their verdict didn’t have to be unanimous.

A leftist Manhattan jury returned guilty verdicts to 34 counts, and the case was awaiting a sentencing as a preliminary to an appeal.

BREAKING: Judge Merchan has cancelled Trump’s sentencing in the Manhattan DA case indefinitely. It’s reported that the judge also apparently asked to file papers to dismiss case. pic.twitter.com/Xr0hLem18E

— WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily) November 22, 2024

Now, however, Fox News is reporting Merchan, whose daughter was working for Democrats, raising funds off of the decisions her father was making in the courtroom against Trump, has allowed Trump’s lawyers to file a motion to dismiss the charges.

“Merchan said Trump attorneys have until December 2 to file their motion for dismissal. Merchan said Bragg has until December 9 to respond,” the report explained.

The judge also agreed to hold off on any further action regarding sentencing, which had been scheduled for Nov. 26 but now is “adjourned.”

Steven Cheung, the incoming communications director for Trump’s second White House, told Fox News Digital the ruling is a “decisive win” for Trump.

“In a decisive win for President Trump, the hoax Manhattan Case is now fully stayed and sentencing is adjourned,” Cheung said. “President Trump won a landslide victory as the American People have issued a mandate to return him to office and dispose of all remnants of the Witch Hunt cases.”

The dismissal plan had been put before the judge by Todd Blanche, Trump defense lawyer and now nominee for deputy attorney general, who said, “On November 5, 2024, the Nation’s People issued a mandate that supersedes the political motivations of DANY’s ‘People.’ This case must be immediately dismissed.”

Fox reported he cited the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interests of justice to call for a dismissal of the case.

Bragg, meanwhile, has suggested putting the case on hold so that he could resurrect it years from now when Trump no longer is president, a move that would presume Bragg’s own re-election.

Analysts suggested that Bragg actually wants the case to be looming over Trump for the duration of his presidency, which a trial judge’s decision to hold off sentencing and keep the case alive could do.

Merchan last week ordered the cancelation of all deadlines in the case.

Democratic Florida state attorney Dave Aronberg Friday commended President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, Pam Bondi.

Trump announced Bondi, Florida’s former attorney general, as his choice Thursday shortly after Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz removed himself from consideration. Aronberg, on “Morning Joe,” recalled Bondi hiring him as Florida’s “drug czar” despite his Democratic affiliation, suggesting that her loyalty to Trump would not interfere with her dedication to law enforcement.

WATCH:

“Thank you for bringing up the traumatic experience of my statewide election loss in 2010. So I ran for attorney general, lost in the Democratic primary. Pam Bondi was running at the same time on the Republican side. She likes to say that she beat me and then she hired me. That gives me too much credit,” Aronberg said. “I didn’t even make it to the big game because I lost in the primary. But then, even though I endorsed my Democratic opponent who ran against her in the general election, she still appointed me as drug czar to go after the pill mills, the opioid epidemic. And we shut down all those pill mills that made Florida the drug supplier for the rest of the country.”

Trump praised Bondi’s efforts “to stop the trafficking of deadly drugs” in his Truth Social announcement and said she “will refocus the DOJ [Department of Justice] to its intended purpose of fighting Crime.”

“So she reached across party lines, she got a lot of criticism for it from some of her fellow Republicans. There’s this one story I like to say where there was a party leader in southwest Florida who got in her face and thought he could be so bold to put a finger in her face and say how dare you appoint Democratic Dave Aronberg to this position,” Aronberg continued. “And then she responded by putting a finger in his face. And so she had my back, she was loyal. She’s no one’s patsy. And the fact that she’s loyal to her friends and people who work for her is an explanation of why Trump picked her, because she is loyal to Donald Trump. But this loyalty, this love for Donald Trump, is a real love.”

“She’s a true believer. But with that said, she’s also someone who believes in the rule of law. She was a prosecutor for 20 years. She was attorney general for eight years, and even though, you know, she engaged in political rhetoric, I do not believe she will be Matt Gaetz 2.0,” he added. “She is not going to burn it all down. She is not going to put forward fake charges to go after Trump’s enemies.”

Gaetz announced earlier on Thursday that he was withdrawing from consideration for attorney general, writing on X that his nomination had “unfairly become a distraction” to Trump’s transition efforts.

Trump recently selected his criminal defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove to serve as deputy attorney general and principal associate deputy attorney general. He also named Dean John Sauer, who presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States, as solicitor general.

This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.