ABC anchor shows his true colors when Trump attorney points out inconvenient fact about Trump prosecutor: 'In front of you'



ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos ended an interview on Sunday when his guest offered evidence questioning the Biden administration's influence in Donald Trump's hush-money trial.

At the end of a contentious interview, Trump attorney Will Scharf argued the prosecution of his client proves the "weaponization of our legal system" and the "politicization of prosecution."

'You want to talk about political coordination, George, it's right there in front of you.'

"Remember, this case in New York, it was called the 'zombie case.' It sat and sat and sat. It could have been brought at any point after 2020. And then suddenly, when President Trump announced his campaign for president, it was dusted off, rushed in front of a grand jury, and then rushed into court," Scharf argued. "You want to talk about the politicization of the legal system, I mean this is exhibit A."

For some reason, the assertion that America's legal system is politicized caused Stephanopoulos to defend President Joe Biden's Justice Department.

"Of course, the attorney general in Manhattan has nothing to do with the Department of Justice," Stephanopoulos rebutted.

But Scharf pushed back.

"I vehemently disagree that the district attorney in New York was not politically motivated here, and I vehemently disagree that President Biden and his political allies aren’t up their necks in this prosecution," Scharf responded.

"I think the fact that the Biden campaign —" he continued when Stephanopoulos interjected to defend Biden.

"There's no evidence here of that. Sir, there's no — there's not — I'm not going to let you continue to say that. There's just zero evidence of that," Stephanopoulos claimed.

To the contrary, Scharf then offered evidence that calls into question the potential role that Democratic politics played in the Manhattan DA's decision to prosecute the "zombie case."

"Well, how about the fact that Matthew Colangelo was standing over Alvin Bragg’s shoulder when he announced this verdict? I mean, Colangelo was the No. 3 official in the Biden Department of Justice, who suddenly disappears and shows up as an assistant district attorney right as Trump’s case in New York starts to proceed," Scharf explained.

"You want to talk about political coordination, George, it's right there in front of you," he added.

Stephanopoulos — a former Democratic operative who went from the Clinton administration to ABC News — responded by simply claiming, "This has nothing to do with President Biden."

He did not, however, respond to Scharf's point about Matthew Colangelo.

Colangelo worked in Biden's DOJ as the associate attorney general — the third-highest job in the DOJ — before leaving in December 2022 to join the Manhattan DA's office. Colangelo, like Bragg, also previously worked in the New York attorney general's office, where they helped target Trump repeatedly.

At the time he joined Bragg's office in Manhattan, the New York Times reported that Colangelo was "likely to become one of the leaders of the district attorney’s criminal inquiry into the former president."

And that's exactly what happened.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Top Silicon Valley investor abandons Dems, cuts Trump campaign massive check after verdict: 'I'll lose friends for this'



A top Silicon Valley venture capitalist announced Thursday that he donated $300,000 to Donald Trump's re-election effort after the former president's conviction.

Shaun Maguire, a general partner at Sequoia Capital, is not only donating to Trump's campaign. He is supporting Trump — no matter the cost.

'I personally consider the double standards and lawfare against Trump to be 10x worse, and 10x more dangerous for our Democracy.'

"Back in 2016 I had drunk the media Kool-Aid and was scared out of my mind about Trump. As such I donated to Hilary Clinton’s campaign and voted for her," Maguire explained on X. "Now, in 2024, I believe this is one of the most important elections of my lifetime, and I’m supporting Trump.

"I know that I’ll lose friends for this. Some will refuse to do business with me. The media will probably demonize me, as they have so many others before me," he added. "But despite this, I still believe it’s the right thing to do."

Maguire's decision to support Trump — with words, money, and his vote — was a long time coming.

In a lengthy essay, Maguire said he believes the 2016 election was unfairly manipulated against Hillary Clinton — "stolen," even — though he doesn't blame Trump for that.

But his "radicalization" against the Democratic Party began after President Joe Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, Maguire believes Biden's presidency has been a foreign policy catastrophe, resulting in "global instability."

Maguire, moreover, believes the Democrats have used double standards and "lawfare" to target Trump because he is the Democratic Party's No. 1 opponent.

"I believe Trump was one of the best foreign policy presidents in decades, and during the most complex period in almost a century," Maguire wrote.

Referring to the infamous "Access Hollywood" clip, he explained, "That clip still sits in the back of my mind, but I personally consider the double standards and lawfare against Trump to be 10x worse, and 10x more dangerous for our Democracy."

In the end, Maguire said he believes the "justice system is being weaponized" against Trump, and that is why he now supports Trump.

— (@)

Maguire is not the only American to put his money where his mouth is.

On Friday, the Trump campaign announced it raised $34.8 million from small-dollar donors in the hours after Trump was convicted, a record single-day haul for the campaign.

Even more shocking is that nearly 30% of the donations came from first-time donors. That means the verdict motivated voters, who may not have financially supported Trump's campaign otherwise, to spend their hard-earned money to help send Trump back to the White House.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Polling expert gives CNN host the cold, hard facts about Trump's trial — and the numbers don't look good for Democrats



It appears Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) is not winning in the court of public opinion.

CNN data expert Harry Enten explained on Wednesday that Bragg's prosecution of Donald Trump — over a hush-money payment that Bragg argues is a case of election interference — is not hurting Trump's perception among his fellow Americans.

'That Trump train that has been moving faster than it has ever been moved before in a general election doesn't show any signs of slowing down.'

Citing two Quinnipiac University polls, one taken before the trial began and a second taken last week, Enten said the share of Americans who believe Trump is guilty of illegal conduct remains the same at 46%.

But a second metric actually suggests the trial has helped Trump.

"The percentage of Americans who think that the charges are very serious, in fact, dropped from 40% to a little bit more than 35% during the course of this trial," Enten noted.

— (@)

The fact that Americans are not turning against Trump raises an interesting question: Why not?

Democrats and the media, after all, have dedicated a serious chunk of their energy over the last year to highlighting Trump's legal woes. Wouldn't that at least move the needle a little in their favor?

As it turns out, Americans just don't care about Trump's legal problems as much as they care about their own, Enten explained — like the economy, inflation, and immigration.

"What we see is Americans' minds aren't changing, and a big reason why Americans' minds aren't changing is, at this particular point, they are tuned out of the conversation," Enten said.

"At this particular point, that Trump train that has been moving faster than it has ever been moved before in a general election doesn't show any signs of slowing down, despite the criminal indictments against him, despite the fact that this case in New York is now going to the jury," he added.

While the trial itself appears to have had little impact on the public, it remains to be seen how the verdict will impact the election.

A guilty verdict could help Trump by aiding the perception that he was unfairly targeted to help President Joe Biden win re-election. On the other hand, because less than a majority of Americans believe the charges are "very serious," an acquittal is not likely to have an impact one way or the other.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Turley upends narrative claiming Trump jury requests are 'great news' for prosecutors: 'Pretty chilling'



Legal expert Jonathan Turley believes several jury requests indicate not-so-good news for prosecutors targeting Donald Trump.

Hours after they began deliberations, the 12-person jury deciding Trump's fate in the hush-money case submitted two notes to Judge Juan Merchan.

'That is pretty chilling for people that believe strongly in the criminal justice system and the very high standard of proof that’s required.'

In the first note, jurors made four requests related to the testimony of David Pecker and Michael Cohen, two key witnesses at the trial. In the second note, the jury requested to rehear Merchan's complicated instructions, which took more than an hour to read on Wednesday morning.

From Turley’s perspective, the note requesting the jury instructions does not bode well for the prosecution.

“I’m surprised that some other networks have said, ‘Look, this is really great news that they sent this out.’ I gotta tell you, as a criminal defense attorney, I would not view this as clearly good news for the prosecution,” he said on Fox News.

“The only reason why a jury would send out a request to hear the instructions again is if there’s a disagreement about what the instructions are,” he explained. “That indicates that there may be a conflict with jurors in that room about what their standard is, how they are supposed to look at the evidence.”

The request for transcripts of Cohen’s testimony, Turley added, could indicate the jury is scrutinizing Cohen’s testimony. This is important because Merchan told the jurors they could disregard his testimony if they believe he lied about any material fact.

“I don’t consider this such a clearly positive thing for the prosecution. As a defense attorney, I would welcome this type of request. They were only in there for a few hours, and they asked to hear the instructions again, and they asked to hear core testimony,” Turley explained.

Still, there remains a problem for Trump, Turley said: Merchan’s controversial instructions.

“They are very one-sided, and they have converted this into something of a canned hunt. What Judge Merchan has said is that you could divide four, four, four. You could have three groups of jurors who view the facts materially differently. They could disagree as to what crime was behind this effort to falsify business records, and Merchan will still treat that as a unanimous verdict,” he explained. “That is pretty chilling for people that believe strongly in the criminal justice system and the very high standard of proof that’s required.”

Court resumed on Thursday just after 9:30 a.m.

After the jury was re-empaneled, Merchan re-read his instructions, prompting some jurors — including one of the panel's two attorneys — to write diligent notes. Afterward, the court began re-reading the requested witness testimony.

The jury is expected to restart deliberations after all requested testimony is re-read.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Political strategist reality-checks Biden campaign for stunt outside Trump's trial: 'Stupid mistake'



Karl Rove, a career political strategist, is calling out the Biden campaign for a "stupid mistake."

On Tuesday, the Biden campaign held a surprise press conference outside the Manhattan courthouse where Donald Trump's hush money trial is taking place. The campaign used actor Robert De Niro and two former Capitol Police officers — Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone, who both worked on Jan. 6 — to do the campaign's anti-Trump messaging.

'Under Sheppard v. Maxwell ... the Supreme Court has long held that a defendant’s right to an impartial jury can be violated by extensive publicity about the case that creates a circus atmosphere.'

The mistake, according to Rove, is the Biden campaign aided the perception that Trump's trial is political.

"Stupid mistake by the Biden campaign," Rove said on Fox News.

"While all the cameras were there, they wanted to get their moment in the sun — and it was a big mistake. It politicizes the trial," he explained.

At the press conference, De Niro claimed that Trump will "destroy America" and "destroy the world" if he wins the election. According to Rove, that type of rhetoric won't win the support of undecided voters — and it could push them away.

"This was so over-the-top as to simply be useless, and what a stupid mistake on the part of the Biden campaign," Rove exclaimed.

‘Stupid Mistake!’: Karl Rove Torches Biden Campaign for Holding Bizarre Robert De Niro Press Conference pic.twitter.com/LUfk2WbLH1
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) May 28, 2024


Not only was the stunt a potential political mistake, but attorney Dan McLaughlin thinks it may have been a legal one, too.

In his view, McLaughlin said that prosecutors may have violated Trump's Sixth Amendment rights.

— (@)

"Under Sheppard v. Maxwell ... the Supreme Court has long held that a defendant’s right to an impartial jury can be violated by extensive publicity about the case that creates a circus atmosphere," McLaughlin wrote at National Review.

"This is a nationally known celebrity acting as a representative of the president of the United States, at the very site of the trial, on the day before the jury will begin to deliberate, declaring that 'everybody in the world' knows that the defendant is guilty and that he has previously gotten out of too many thing," he added, referring to De Niro.

"Sure, Trump has had his surrogates out there (including the speaker of the House), but the prosecution doesn’t have a constitutional right to an impartial jury; the defendant does," he explained. "If this isn’t over the line, what is?"

Meanwhile, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was recently accused of saying "the quiet part out loud" when she refused to answer a question about Speaker Mike Johnson (R) speaking outside Trump's trial by citing the upcoming election.

"I don't want to comment, obviously, as this is related to 2024 elections," she said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Analysis: What happens if Trump gets convicted?



There is a question looming over a Manhattan courthouse as the jury begins deliberations in Donald Trump's hush-money trial: What happens if the jurors return a guilty verdict?

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) secured a grand jury indictment last year charging Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records, a Class E felony in New York State. Each count carries a maximum prison sentence of four years and a $5,000 fine. At trial, prosecutors attempted to spin the alleged crimes into a case of election interference.

'There are many reasons why incarceration is truly a last resort for me.'

Whether prosecutors proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt is a question only the 12-person jury can answer, though legal experts who spoke with Blaze News doubt they met that threshold.

Trump's fate now rests in the jury's hands, raising unprecedented questions.

Could Trump go to jail?

Technically, yes.

Judge Juan Merchan has broad discretion over how to sentence Trump if the jury finds him guilty. Merchan could place Trump under house arrest, sentence him to probation, order him to pay a fine, or send him to jail.

But it's unlikely that Trump will ever see the inside of a jail cell.

Trump is a 77-year-old defendant, the former president is accused of nonviolent offenses, and he has no prior convictions. Not only that, but Merchan personally told Trump that sending him to prison is a "last resort."

"You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well. There are many reasons why incarceration is truly a last resort for me," Merchan said.

Importantly, few cases prosecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office in which falsifying business records was the most serious charge resulted in prison sentences. Attorney Norm Eisen analyzed those cases and told CBS News that roughly 10% ended with a sentence that included incarceration.

Ultimately, the severity of Trump's sentence — if he is convicted — will depend on how many of the 34 counts he is found guilty of committing.

"It could be nine counts, it could be 34 counts," said George Grasso, a former New York City judge. "The number of counts has some bearing. If someone were convicted of one count of a nonviolent E felony, it's different than someone being found guilty of 34 counts.

"It could be 30 days' jail and three years' probation, or it could just be probation, or it could be a conditional discharge," he explained. "The judge has a lot of options here."

Even then, Trump's team would appeal a guilty verdict, likely delaying a sentence. The appeal would first go to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, before heading to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals in Albany.

Appeals processes are notoriously lengthy, though Trump's would likely receive expedited review. Still, the process would not likely conclude before Election Day — now just five months away.

Trump's attorneys twice asked Merchan for a mistrial during Stormy Daniels' testimony; both requests were denied. Her testimony could be grounds for the appeal. Bragg's novel legal approach — upgrading misdemeanors to felonies using uncharged federal crimes — could also be grounds for an appeal.

What about Secret Service protection?

Under federal law, the Secret Service is required to provide former presidents with lifetime protection after they leave office — even if they're incarcerated.

That means Trump gets to keep his Secret Service protection on the inside.

The Secret Service, in fact, has already had preliminary discussions about how to handle protecting Trump if he is sent to jail, the New York Times reported last month. That was in response to the possibility that Merchan would briefly jail Trump in a courthouse holding cell for contempt, according to the newspaper.

Still, the logistics of protecting Trump behind bars remain unknown. The Secret Service does not speak publicly about its protective operations. The agency did not respond to an inquiry from Blaze News.

However, the New York Times reported:

Protecting Trump in a prison environment would involve keeping him separate from other inmates, as well as screening his food and other personal items, officials said. If he were to be imprisoned, a detail of agents would work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, rotating in and out of the facility, several officials said. While firearms are obviously strictly prohibited in prisons, the agents would nonetheless be armed.

Former corrections officials said there were several New York state prisons and city jails that have been closed or partly closed, leaving wings or large sections of their facilities empty and available. One of those buildings could serve to incarcerate the former president and accommodate his Secret Service protective detail.

Meanwhile, some House Democrats want to strip Trump's Secret Service protection if he is convicted.

The Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act would remove Secret Service protection from individuals who are convicted of a felony in state or federal court.

Could Trump still run for president from jail?

Yes.

The Constitution lists three qualifications for the presidency: Be a natural-born citizenat least 35 years old who has lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.

"There is no constitutional bar on a felon running for office," explained UCLA Law School professor Richard Hasen.

In fact, two people have campaigned for president from prison. Eugene Debs, a socialist, ran for president in 1920 from a prison cell, winning nearly 1 million votes. Lyndon LaRouche also campaigned from prison in 1992.

Could Trump pardon himself if he wins re-election?

No.

The president can only issue pardons for federal convictions, and Trump is being tried in state court. Only New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) could pardon Trump if he is convicted.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!