Breaking: Trump says he expects to be indicted a third time
Former President Donald Trump said on Truth Social that he expected to be indicted by special counsel Jack Smith for alleged crimes related to the presidential election of 2020.
Trump issued a pre-emptive criticism against the expected indictments Tuesday, which would be the third set of indictments for the former president.
"I hear that Deranged Jack Smith, in order to interfere with the Presidential Election of 2024, will be putting out yet another Fake Indictment of your favorite President, me, at 5:00 P.M.," wrote Trump.
"Why didn't they do this 2.5 years ago? Why did they wait so long? Because they wanted to put right in the middle of my campaign! Prosecutorial Misconduct!" he added.
“A Nation In Decline!” Trump added in a second post.
In March, Trump was first indicted by a Manhattan grand jury over charges related to hush money paid to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who said she had an affair with then-candidate Trump. Trump has also been indicted for alleged misconduct related to the classified documents that were seized from his residence at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.
Trump had called on his supporters to demonstrate after the first indictments.
"Protest, take our nation back!" he wrote on Truth Social.
This is a developing story and will be updated with more information as it becomes available.
Here's more about the Trump indictments:
Why is Congress FUNDING indictments of Biden's main rival?! www.youtube.com
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
DC Draino: We must keep fighting for America
If you’re a conservative who’s active on social media, then you’re probably aware of DC Draino.
Draino’s Twitter account was removed under former leadership but has thankfully been restored under the more lenient free speech advocate that is Elon Musk.
The influencer's real name is Rogan O’Handley, and he’s one of the most powerful conservative influencers on Instagram. The name “DC Draino” is a nod to draining the D.C. swamp, which is something he believes is sorely needed.
Jason Whitlock sat down with O’Handley on "Fearless" to discuss a possible secession, their values, and the evidence that America is not finished — despite its disintegrating Christian values and the 34 charges recently brought against Donald Trump.
While O’Handley is not a proponent of secession, he agrees with Whitlock that they “don’t share values with these people,” but he does believe “they can be convinced in the long run.”
“I believe they were programmed like this from media brainwashing and propaganda, and they can be deprogrammed.”
When Whitlock mentions that it feels like Christian values have become a disadvantage, O’Handley has an inspiring message.
He says that “the forces of darkness want you to feel like it’s hopeless. I think hope is the number one thing people need to restore greatness to a culture and to a country.”
While Democratic politicians and transgender influencers like Dylan Mulvaney continue to hack away at American values, O’Handley has a positive take on the future — so long as Americans don’t give up.
“The one thing we cannot do is give up. The one thing we must do is continue fighting and chipping away.”
He continues, “They put this communist infestation in place for 40, 50 years. We’re not going to get rid of it overnight. But with free speech,” he continues, “ and God on our side — who are following in God’s path — doing what God would want us to do, you know it’s actually kind of an opportunity.”
Want more from Jason Whitlock?
To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Law professor destroys Alvin Bragg's 'legal embarrassment' of a case — but still finds a way to blame Trump
A law professor argued Wednesday that the case Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg constructed against Donald Trump is a "disaster." Somehow, though, it is still partially Trump's fault, the lawyer claimed.
Fordham Law School professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman wrote in a New York Times essay that the 34 indictments Bragg secured against Trump are "more accurately" described as "34 half-indictments," suggesting the charges are weak and not easily defensible.
The case is even "a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutor," according to Shugerman, who added:
The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption — only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements. Even if it survives a challenge that could reach the Supreme Court, a trial would most likely not start until at least mid-2024, possibly even after the 2024 election.
But the damning assessment did not stop Shugerman from blaming Trump for what he called a "legal embarrassment."
"This legal embarrassment reveals new layers of Trumpian damage to the legal foundations of the United States: Mr. Trump’s opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms," Shugerman wrote.
The thesis of the article, then, is that Bragg has constructed a legally questionable case — with an "open-ended indictment" that doesn't specify "the core crime that would turn a filing misdemeanor into a felony" — as a response to Trump's alleged "norms violations."
Unfortunately, Shugerman does not clarify in his essay how Trump violated legal norms; he simply stated it as an a priori fact.
What Shugerman does do, however, is examine in damning fashion just how poor a case Bragg has constructed, touching on the indictment itself, potential Sixth Amendment violations, Bragg's convoluted legal theory, and the legal doctrine of pre-emption, thus calling into question whether Bragg even has the jurisdiction to prosecute alleged federal crimes.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
NY Times reporter exposes double standard in White House treatment of January 6
New York Times reporter Michael Shear confronted White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Tuesday over the Biden administration's unwillingness to comment on the Donald Trump indictment.
At the beginning of the briefing, Jean-Pierre said the White House is not commenting on Trump's case because "it's an ongoing case."
When it was Shear's turn to question Jean-Pierre, he noted that Biden "has spoken repeatedly" about January 6. Referring to two speeches he delivered involving Jan. 6, Shear pointed out that "there were more than 500 active legal cases going on during the time that he made those speeches" and that Biden's comments could have impacted the cases.
"What is the White House's reticence?" Shear asked, referring to the refusal to address Trump's case. "And what's the difference between [Jan. 6] and [Trump's case]?"
The press secretary responded with her usual talking points, claiming Jan. 6 "was an attack on our democracy" and that Biden "will never shy away when it comes to our democracy." But Shear had no patience for Jean-Pierre's spin and question-dodging.
"There were 500 cases involving Americans whose freedom was at risk!" he told Jean-Pierre.
04/04/23: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre www.youtube.com
Jean-Pierre responded by noting that "people died" on Jan. 6, to which Shear fired back, "I don't need a lecture on the fact that people died!"
After Jean-Pierre then accused Shear of lecturing her, he exposed yet another double standard in the White House's position. Officials were willing to comment on Jan. 6 despite the ongoing criminal cases because of its historic nature, but Trump's indictment is also historic, so why are they unwilling to talk about it?
"Why isn't that, why isn't there a similar kind of assessment about how the world is watching us now?" he asked.
The press secretary said Jan. 6 was "a different moment" and vowed the White House would be "consistent on not commenting on any criminal ongoing investigation."
She never, however, addressed the core of Shear's question, which highlighted the double standard about which historic criminal incidents the Biden administration publicly discusses.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
CNN boasts poll showing majority of Americans 'approve' of Trump indictment — but there is a major problem
CNN boasted on Monday about its poll showing that a majority of Americans approve of the indictment of former President Donald Trump.
The day after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg confirmed that a grand jury indicted Trump, CNN conducted a poll and found that 60% of Americans purportedly "approve" of the indictment while 40% do not.
But there is a significant problem with the poll and its result indicating widespread support for the indictment: It was conducted before the indictment was unsealed.
How, then, can anyone form a reasonable opinion about the indictment and whether or not they support it? The charges against Trump — reportedly 34 counts of a Class E felony for allegedly falsifying business records — will not be made public until the former president is arraigned, which is expected to take place on Tuesday.
Even more bewildering, only 51% of respondents said they've heard "a lot" about the case. Setting aside the fact that no one yet even knows the exact charges against Trump, the figure raises another question: How can you "support" something you're only vaguely aware of?
Meanwhile, the poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans — 76% — view the indictment as political. Only 14% of respondents believe that politics played no role in Bragg's decision to pursue the case.
What about the arraignment?
Trump flew to New York City on Monday ahead of his arraignment.
Trump's time in the courthouse on Tuesday is expected to be brief. He will not be handcuffed, and TV cameras will not be allowed in the courtroom. Trump will learn the charges against him and enter his plea, which is expected to be "not guilty." The former president is reportedly prepared to enter the plea himself, rather than have his lawyers speak for him.
Trump, however, will not be subjected to a mug shot, Yahoo News reported. Trump will be accompanied by his Secret Service agents through the entire process.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Former DA who declined to charge Trump raises critical question about Alvin Bragg's case: 'Never been done'
Former Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. provided insight into the criminal case against Donald Trump on Sunday, declining to say it is "airtight."
What is the background?
Last Thursday, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg confirmed that a grand jury indicted Trump.
The case centers on a hush-money payment. Trump allegedly used attorney Michael Cohen to siphon money to Stormy Daniels, then recorded those payments as legal fees, thus allegedly committing the crime of falsifying business records.
But the case is particularly convoluted because Bragg is purportedly attempting to elevate misdemeanor falsifying business records charges to a Class E felony by arguing the crime occurred in the commission of another crime. It's not yet clear what the second crime is, but it is suspected that Bragg will argue the Daniels payment functioned as a campaign donation — on the basis that Trump's campaign benefited from it — thus violating campaign finance laws.
What did Vance say?
Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Vance admitted he is unsure whether the case is "airtight," and he explained why declined to pursue the case several years ago.
"Did your office conclude that a stand-alone felony charge for these hush-money payments wasn't worth it because of so many of the uncertainties around the legal theory?" host Chuck Todd asked.
At first, Vance reiterated that federal attorneys in the Southern District of New York had asked his office to "stand down." Then he implied that his office did not pursue a felony case against Trump because such a case is unprecedented — not just against a former president, but against anyone.
"I don't want to get into our deliberations. But we have historically filed cases of false documentation, elevating them to felonies, when federal statutes were involved," Vance began.
"It's never been done, that I know of, with regard to federal election law, which is quite a, you know, specific area of law," he added.
Full fmr. Manhattan DA: ‘I guarantee’ the court wants to move ‘quickly’ following Trump indictment youtu.be
According to Vance, the real question is not why his office did not pursue the case, "but why this district attorney is doing it."
The final observation points to a larger problem in the case: Vance and the federal government declined to prosecute it, so what new evidence has Bragg's office uncovered — if any at all — that makes the case suddenly viable?
If Bragg cannot prove the second crime, then the case will likely be tossed on statute of limitation grounds because the statute of limitations for the falsifying business records charge is two years. Whether or not Bragg would even clear the statute of limitations hurdle for the felony charge — five years — is highly debatable.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com