On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Loren Merchan, the daughter of Judge Juan Merchan, amid allegations that her work with former President Donald Trump’s political adversaries could have influenced her father’s rulings. The move comes as tensions continue to escalate over the Manhattan District Attorney’s prosecution of former President Trump, a case that many argued is politically motivated.

Judge Merchan, who presided over Trump’s criminal trial, has already faced significant scrutiny. His refusal to recuse himself from the case, despite connections that some view as clear conflicts of interest, raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. But it was the career of his daughter, Loren Merchan, that has sparked the most significant waves of controversy.

Loren Merchan serves as the president of Authentic Campaigns, a company that has worked on behalf of some of Trump’s most prominent political adversaries, including Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). The Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), has been investigating whether her company’s involvement with these political figures presents a conflict of interest in the Trump trial.

In Jordan’s letter, the Committee made clear its concerns, stating that Loren Merchan and Authentic Campaigns could have financially benefited from the prosecution and conviction of former President Trump. This, they argue, could have influenced Judge Merchan’s decisions, making his impartiality questionable at best.

SUBPOENAED. https://t.co/k77FbArWBm pic.twitter.com/afbGJb0VLh

— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) August 28, 2024

The letter, addressed to Authentic Campaigns CEO Michael Nellis, stated, “The Committee is continuing to conduct oversight of politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials. Popularly elected prosecutors, such as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, have engaged in an unprecedented abuse of authority by prosecuting a former President of the United States and current nominee for that office.”

The letter goes on to say that it is the Committee’s belief that the involvement of Judge Merchan’s daughter in such a politically charged environment created the appearance of impropriety. The Committee had previously requested information and documents from Loren Merchan and Authentic Campaigns, but after repeated refusals to comply voluntarily, they were left to issue the subpoena.

“Did Authentic Campaigns service Donald Trump’s political adversaries? If yes, whether it’s Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or Adam Schiff, then the owners and people who work at the company can’t have relatives serving as judges in cases against Donald Trump. Period,” the committee wrote on X on August 16th.

Judge Juan Merchan was the key figure in the legal proceedings against Trump. He presided over the Manhattan criminal case involving allegations that Trump falsified business records related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying records, a case brought forward by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The scrutiny surrounding Judge Merchan and his daughter has further fueled claims from Trump and his supporters that the charges against him are part of the politically motivated witch hunt. The question now is whether the revelations about Loren Merchan’s work will impact the trial’s outcome, or if it will be seen as another attempt by Trump’s opponents to undermine his re-election bid.

(VOTE: Are You Supporting TRUMP Or KAMALA In November?)

Read More

Legal observers of former President Donald Trump’s hush money conviction believe there is ample evidence it will be overturned on appeal.

That’s the basis of an argument put forth by David W. Fischer, a Maryland and D.C.-based criminal defense attorney, who posited online that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling gives Trump’s attorneys all the ammo they need to overturn the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The Democratic prosecutor most recently declined to oppose a delay in a sentencing hearing, suggesting he too is aware that the high court’s decision could upend the case Trump has long called politically motivated. According to Fischer, the former president is on solid ground in arguing that his criminal actions were protected “official acts” while in office.

(VOTE: Are You Supporting TRUMP Or KAMALA In November?)

Fischer explains, “The Supreme Court’s definition of what constitutes an ‘official act’ is broad. Even conduct in the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s duties is ‘presumptively immune’ and cannot be used in a trial ‘even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct.’” Bragg, predictably, has opposed that argument in Trump’s request to dismiss the conviction, saying the then-candidate directed his former attorney to make a six-figure payment to an adult film star to quell rumors of a possible extramarital affair. “Bragg’s prosecutors, however, introduced substantial evidence at trial that clearly falls under the rubric of ‘official acts.’ (The alleged crime took place when Donald Trump was president.),” Fischer continued in an op-ed on reporter Julie Kelly’s Substack page.

Among the evidence cited by Bragg is testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen and spokeswoman Hope Hicks that he claims shows the former president was “motivated” by a purely “private purpose” in directing the payment. That claim has been rejected by the Supreme Court, Fischer wrote. “Bragg’s main problem is that his prosecutors heavily emphasized official-acts evidence to the jury in the closing argument. In particular, prosecutors used immunized conversations from Hicks and others to bolster Cohen’s credibility, and even had Cohen testify about Trump allegedly offering pardons for nefarious purposes. These conversations are immunized because, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Trump v. United States, to allow them to be used against a former President would ‘pose [a danger] of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.’ To paraphrase the Chief Justice, an ‘official act’ is not a ‘private act’ just because a prosecutor characterizes it as such.”

Another point of contention asserted by Trump’s attorneys is that Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan allowed Bragg to introduce “immunized testimony” by Hicks and Cohen, both of whom had been promised immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against their former boss. It is widely believed that Bragg could not have proved his case without their admissions, but especially that of Cohen, an ex-con who was previously convicted of lying to Congress. “By failing to rule on the admissibility of arguably official-acts evidence before trial, Judge Merchan likely committed reversible error,” Fischer opines.

In the end, President Trump will nonetheless benefit from extensive delays in his trial, he concludes. Others have speculated that Bragg, in declining to oppose a delay in sentencing for President Trump, is acting at the wishes of national Democrats including Vice President Kamala Harris who some argue would rather avoid the spectacle of seeing the Republican sentenced to jail time. The change in timeline means any outcome will almost certainly be delayed until after the November election. “Assuming Trump is re-elected, the New York case will evaporate, either through the appellate or political process,” Fischer concluded.

(FREE RED HAT: “Impeached. Arrested. Convicted. Shot. Still Standing”)

Read More

After securing a criminal conviction against former President Donald Trump, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg may now be running cover for Democrats who don’t want to see the Republican jailed before Election Day.

In a filing submitted on Friday, the progressive prosecutor said his office will not oppose a motion by Trump’s attorneys to delay a previously scheduled sentencing hearing on September 18th. The request came following a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting presidents absolute immunity from official acts performed in office which they argue could be construed to include actions around the hush money payment paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels. In June President Trump was found guilty of felony charges that he orchestrated the payments to assist his 2016 presidential campaign and then ordered the misclassification of the payments on business records. Prosecutors with his office now tell Judge Juan Merchan that discretion around a sentence, which could include jail time, will not include a recommendation from their office.

(VOTE: Are You Supporting TRUMP Or KAMALA In November?)

“The People defer to the Court on the appropriate post-trial schedule that allows for adequate time to adjudicate defendant’s [presidential immunity] motion while also pronouncing sentence ‘without unreasonable delay,’” prosecutors wrote, according to the Washington Examiner. “The Supreme Court’s recent decision did not consider whether a trial court’s ruling on that distinct evidentiary question is immediately appealable, and there are strong reasons why it should not be. Nonetheless, given the defense’s newly-stated position, we defer to the Court on whether an adjournment is warranted to allow for orderly appellate litigation of that question, or to reduce the risk of a disruptive stay from an appellate court pending consideration of that question.” Their honoring of a request for a delay is the second in as many months.

JUST IN: DA Bragg does *not* oppose Trump’s request to delay his sentencing, instead deferring to Justice Merchan.

They note the new/complex effect of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. https://t.co/kOw6qETBZF pic.twitter.com/2paU87ko1q

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 19, 2024

RedState contributor Bonchie immediately called the letter by Bragg’s office an “incredibly transparent” request to keep President Trump out of jail, thereby avoiding the risk of furthering public sympathy for the Republican just one month after he narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. Since then, President Joe Biden ended his reelection campaign, paving the way for Vice President Kamala Harris to be officially nominated by the Democratic Party at this week’s national convention in Chicago. Most mainstream polls show the veep in a dead heat with Trump, surpassing Biden’s sagging results from weeks earlier.

This is Bragg trying to protect Democrats from any possible backlash.

Incredibly transparent. https://t.co/GKTTtoqGrR

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) August 19, 2024

President Trump faces sentencing on 34 felony convictions and still has a federal J6 case that is all but certain to remain unresolved before Election Day. A Florida U.S. district judge last month dismissed his classified documents case, citing the Supreme Court’s July ruling. A fourth case in Georgia involving alleged election interference has been badly sidelined by prosecutorial misconduct.

In several bids to wrest media attention away from Vice President Harris, Trump has held winding press conferences from Mar-a-Lago where he accused Democrats of committing a “coup” by sidelining Biden and “installing” Harris. More than 14 million Democratic primary voters opted for Biden, a choice which has now been negated by her nomination, Trump alleges. Already, mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post are claiming that Trump’s argument is laying the groundwork for a refusal to abide by the results of the election should Harris win.

(FREE RED HAT: “Impeached. Arrested. Convicted. Shot. Still Standing”)

Read More

America First Legal (AFL) has filed a new lawsuit against the New York District Attorney’s Office for refusing to comply with a records request under the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) regarding District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

In March of 2023, AFL opened an investigation into the New York County District Attorney’s Office in search of internal communications and other documents surrounding the prosecution of the former president. In one example, the legal group cited a quote from Democrat Political Operative Lanny Davis, who claimed that he triggered the investigation in a statement to Politico.

“Davis’s claims might be puffery, but they provide an additional reason to believe that the District Attorney’s unusual interest in President Trump has been based on improper partisan considerations from the start,” AFL wrote in a press release.

(VOTE: Are You Supporting TRUMP Or KAMALA In November?)

Following Trump’s conviction in the case that was plagued by political bias and prosecuted by individuals with deep ties to Democratic Party interests and the Biden Administration, AFL filed a number of additional records requests, including requests for Judge Juan Merchan’s finances. Merchan’s daughter is a high-profile consultant who has raised millions of dollars for left-wing political candidates, including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

On June 3, 2024, after several extensions, the District Attorney’s Office granted access to “one single-page record,” AFL announced in the press release.

“Additionally, its search identified ’36 responsive records’  to AFL’s request for all emails or other communications ‘mentioning or regarding Donald J. Trump’ with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), but the request was ‘denied on grand jury secrecy grounds,’” the legal group further explained.

“Bragg’s office’s statement appears inconsistent with DOJ’s June 10, 2024, response to Chairman Jim Jordan, stating that DOJ found nothing from its ‘comprehensive search for email communications since January 20, 2021, through the date of the verdict, between any officials in Department leadership, including all political appointees in those offices, and the District Attorney’s office regarding any investigation or prosecution of the former President.’”

As a result, America First Legal is now suing before the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the request of relevant records. The group is demanding all records pertaining to communications between Bragg’s staff and the Biden Administration, including the Department of Justice, the New York Times, the Free and Fair Litigation Group, and Lanny Davis’ law firm and PR firm. AFL is further requesting all records of internal communications within Bragg’s office concerning Judge Merchan or former President Trump.

As part of its investigation, AFL has previously requested records pertaining to the hiring of Matthew Colangelo, who left a senior position with the Biden DOJ to become a low level prosecutor in New York. He was immediately assigned to the Trump case and prosecuted it in court.

“When justice operates in the shadows, abuse is often the intent. America First Legal is at the forefront of getting the facts and informing the American people. There should be nothing to hide. If improper ex parte communications influenced what is supposed to be nonpartisan prosecutorial conduct, all Americans are at risk. America First Legal is suing because it is committed to ensuring our justice system is free from partisan politics,” said America First Legal Vice President Dan Epstein.

(FREE RED HAT: “Impeached. Arrested. Convicted. Shot. Still Standing”)

Read More

Senator JD Vance turned the tables on “Meet The Press” host Kristen Welker after she asked whether the Ohio lawmaker would support a “weaponization of the Department of Justice” if former President Donald Trump wins re-election.

“The DOJ told Congress this week it reviewed all communication since Biden took office and found no contact between federal prosecutors and those involved with that case in New York,” Welker said. She went on to reference past statements from Vance in which he criticized the politically motivated prosecutions of former President Donald Trump before again claiming that there is “no evidence” of a weaponized DOJ under President Biden.

“If it’s not okay for Joe Biden to weaponize the Justice Department, as you say, which there’s no evidence of that, why is it okay for Donald Trump to do that?” Welker asked.

Without hesitation, Vance referenced the dubious hiring of Matthew Colangelo, who resigned from a senior position in the Biden DOJ to work as a low-level prosecutor in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office.

(BREAKING: This Is The Handshake That Will Collapse The Western Economy)

“Well, Kristen, first of all, you said that it happens all the time, that the number three person in the Department of Justice jumped ship to join a local prosecutor’s office to go after the president’s political opponent. I don’t think that’s ever happened in the history of American democracy, and I don’t think that we should legitimize it,” the conservative senator said. “Now, if Donald Trump’s attorney general had his number two or his number three jump ship to a local prosecutor’s office in Ohio or Wisconsin, and that person then went after Donald Trump’s political opposition, that’s a different conversation. All he’s suggesting is that we should investigate credible arguments of wrongdoing.”

“That’s all Donald Trump is saying. That is not a threat to democracy. That’s merely reinforcing our system of law and government,” he continued.

In December 2022, Bragg hired former Biden DOJ official Matthew Colangelo to focus on prosecuting white collar crimes in Manhattan. He was immediately assigned to the Trump case, which he has prosecuted over the last month.

Colangelo was not just any DOJ employee by the time he left to join Bragg’s office. Colangelo served as Acting Associate Attorney General in the early days of the Biden Administration, the third most senior position in the Department of Justice.

Colangelo also worked for New York Attorney Letitia James, who launched the highly questionable investigation into Trump surrounding alleged overvaluing of his properties.

In 2018, he was paid for his consulting services to the Democratic National Committee. FEC records show that the DNC Services Corp/Democratic National Committee paid Colangelo two times on January 31, 2018 for a total of $12,000.

VOTE NOW: Do you blame BIDEN or TRUMP for the crashing economy?

Read More

Former President Donald Trump is filing a motion to throw out his recent Manhattan conviction on 34 felony counts of “falsifying business records” and have his July 11 sentencing postponed after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. presidents have immunity for official acts undertaken while serving in the White House.

According to a report from the New York Times, Trump’s lawyers have sought permission from Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case, to file a motion to set aside the conviction. The letter was sent just hours after the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling on presidential immunity, which will have major ramifications on the ongoing federal cases against the former president.

The letter will not be made public until Tuesday at the earlier, at which point prosecutors will have a chance to respond, a source familiar with the proceedings told the New York Times.

(ALERT: Biden’s New Executive Order Will Crush The US Dollar For Good)

Trump’s legal team hopes to move forward with the motion just ten days before Trump is set to be sentenced in the case that has been plagued by political bias. Trump is asking Judge Merchan — a Biden donor whose daughter has raised millions of dollars for Democrat causes and candidates — to postpone the July 11 sentencing while Merchan determines whether the ruling affects the conviction.

It is unclear whether the motion will be granted, as the conduct covered in the Manhattan case took place before Trump was elected as president.

While it is unclear how Merchan will rule, the effort already appears to have caused a delay in the proceedings. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office was expected to send a sentencing recommendation to the judge and likely recommend a prison term for the former president, though this did not occur.

If Merchan does not entertain the motion, it is possible that Trump’s legal team will revisit the matter when they attempt to appeal the conviction after sentencing, which is set to take place just days before the Republican National Convention.

VOTE NOW: Do you blame BIDEN or TRUMP for the crashing economy?

Read More

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears ready to throw in the towel on a speedy sentencing in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial, indicating in a filing on Tuesday that he would not oppose a request by defense attorneys to push a scheduled hearing past next week.

Since his conviction, President Trump was expected to be sentenced on July 11th, a date that now appears in jeopardy following the Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling which declared sitting presidents are essentially immune from all official acts taken in office. The decision on Monday prompted a speedy motion by lead defense attorney Todd Blanche to push a sentencing hearing later into the summer while Judge Juan Merchan considers their motion to overturn the conviction on 34 felony counts. With both sides in agreement, it appears likely a delay will occur, the New York Times reported.

CAST YOUR VOTE: Should Voter ID Be Mandatory In The 2024 Election?

In response to a letter from Trump’s lawyers, the district attorney’s office wrote that the defense had filed a motion worthy of consideration by Merchan. “Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” wrote Joshua Steinglass, one of the assistant district attorneys who tried the case against the former president. Trump’s lawyers have indicated they plan to file their court papers on July 10th, one day before the scheduled sentencing, and prosecutors said they would respond two weeks later, the outlet reported.

Blanche and his team have argued that prosecutors introduced evidence in the trial that would be precluded under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, according to The Hill, setting up a potential reevaluation of the entire trial. President Trump was convicted of overseeing the falsification of business records to hide a six-figure settlement with an adult film star to hide rumors of an affair that Trump has denied. During the trial, Bragg’s team framed the payment as an unlawful attempt to influence the 2016 election, though lawyers for the Republican noted that an investigation by the Federal Election Commission previously found that the payment did not qualify as a campaign expense.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision will vastly expand the powers of the presidency and has prompted a reckoning among the former president’s opponents about what Trump could be capable of if he returns to the White House. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that a president should be unfettered from the possibility of criminal prosecution in order to carry out his duties. However, non-official acts could be considered for criminality, he added.

“The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts states. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”

(BREAKING: Your Bank Account Is About To Be Cut In HALF)

Read More

Judge Judy Sheindlin didn’t hold back her opinions on Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Known for her no-nonsense approach, Judge Judy criticized the Manhattan District Attorney for a politically motivated and wasteful use of resources.

During an interview with former Fox News host Chris Wallace, Judge Judy expressed her dissatisfaction with how the justice system is being used. “Is that the justice system working or is the justice system being manipulated?” asked Wallace.

“I would be happier as someone who owns property in Manhattan,” Judge Judy began, “if the district attorney of New York County would take care of criminals who are making it impossible for citizens to walk in the streets and use the subway, to use his efforts to keep those people off the street, than to spend five million or ten million dollars of taxpayers money trying Donald Trump on this nonsense. That’s my view.”

“But I as a taxpayer in this country resent using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement,” she said. “I mean if you look, he had to twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was.” Many have felt that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg engaged in a form of political theater rather than focusing on issues that directly impact the safety and well-being of residents.

WATCH:

(ALERT: Biden’s New Executive Order Will Crush The US Dollar For Good)

When the conversation turned to Trump himself, Judge Judy pointed out that there seemed to be a personal vendetta involved. “He doesn’t like him. New York City didn’t like him [Trump] for a while.”

In a dramatic conclusion to a closely watched case, the former President was found guilty on charges stemming from attempts to manipulate the narrative leading up to the 2016 presidential election. The charges, which included a legal “catch and kill” tactic used to prevent the spread of damaging stories, outlined how Trump and his associates paid American Media Inc. to quash stories about his alleged extramarital affairs and other potentially harmful information, according to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

The six-week trial, which captivated the nation in May, ended with Trump’s conviction on all counts. Central to the trial were payments made just before the 2016 election, aimed at silencing Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who alleged an affair with Trump. The prosecution charged that these payments were clear violations of campaign finance laws and involved tax fraud, leading to a potential maximum sentence of four years per count.

Trump vehemently criticized the trial, labeling it a politically motivated attack and proclaiming himself a “political prisoner.” He has vowed to appeal, setting the stage for possibly prolonged legal wrangling. Amid the legal turmoil, Trump has been pushing forward with his 2024 presidential campaign. He remains the 2024 frontrunner.

VOTE NOW: Do you blame BIDEN or TRUMP for the crashing economy?

Read More

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey Announced Friday that his state will be filing a lawsuit against New York over Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s politically motivated “hush money” case against former President Donald Trump.

“I will be filing suit against the State of New York for their direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump,” Bailey wrote in an X post. “It’s time to restore the rule of law.”

“We have to fight back against a rogue prosecutor who is trying to take a presidential candidate off the campaign trail. It sabotages Missourians’ right to a free and fair election,” the post continued.

(BREAKING: Glenn Beck reveals new Biden initiative that will bankrupt America)

In a statement to Fox News, Bailey reiterated that the New York case — which resulted in Trump’s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records — was designed to interfere in the 2024 election. “Radical progressives in New York are trying to rig the 2024 election. We have to stand up and fight back,” Bailey told Fox News.

“The investigations and subsequent prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump appear to have been conducted in coordination with the United States Department of Justice,” he added.

Since the case will involve one state suing another, it will head directly to the Supreme Court, Bailey explained.

The Missouri attorney general previously summarized his views on the Trump trial in a statement to the House Judiciary Committee last week. “The people of the state of Missouri, whom I am tasked with protecting, watched in horror recently as the left’s direct assault on President Trump manifested itself in the form of a politically motivated, legally specious, and corrupt prosecution of the President, which resulted in an errant criminal conviction,” he wrote in his prepared remarks to the panel.

Bailey went on to say that “the left has prioritized its hatred of President Trump above the rule of law. To put it plainly, the left hates President Trump more than they love this country.”

Trump is set to be sentenced on July 11, just days before he is set to be nominated at the Republican National Convention.

VOTE NOW: Do you blame BIDEN or TRUMP for the crashing economy?

Read More