The debate over ballot drop boxes is heating up as several states and municipalities grapple with decisions on whether to allow their use in the upcoming November election.
As the early voting period approaches in numerous jurisdictions, concerns about election security and the management of drop boxes have ignited debate across the country, as Just the News reports.
Ballot drop boxes, which became more common during the 2020 presidential election, are now at the center of legal and political discussions. Some states and municipalities are considering new restrictions, while others are opting to ban them altogether as they weigh concerns about security, legality, and practical implementation.
In Ohio, Secretary of State Frank LaRose recently issued a directive requiring that voters return their own absentee ballots via drop boxes. This directive came after a federal court partially struck down a state law on absentee voting for disabled individuals, a decision spurred by a lawsuit from the League of Women Voters of Ohio. The lawsuit aimed to protect the voting rights of those who need assistance.
LaRose's directive also mandates that assistants delivering ballots for others sign a legal attestation. In a letter to Republican leaders in the state legislature, he urged them to consider removing ballot drop boxes altogether, citing security concerns. However, the directive has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and voting rights groups. Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, expressed concern, arguing that the directive places an unnecessary burden on voters.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, however, has dismissed the idea of banning ballot drop boxes. DeWine emphasized that Ohio's election system is already robust and secure. He argued that any proposed changes to the state's voting procedures would need substantial evidence to justify them.
Meanwhile, Ohio remains one of the key battlegrounds where election officials are facing pressure from both sides of the political aisle. The focus is on how the use of drop boxes might impact the election's accessibility and security.
In Wisconsin, the legal landscape surrounding drop boxes took another turn when the state Supreme Court ruled in July to permit their use. This decision overturned a prior 2022 ruling that had banned drop boxes, much to the relief of voting rights advocates.
Despite the court ruling, two municipalities in Waukesha County -- Brookfield and New Berlin -- voted to ban drop boxes locally. Brookfield officials pointed to extended absentee voting hours and options for drive-up voting for disabled voters as reasons for their decision, asserting that the drop boxes were no longer necessary. In New Berlin, officials cited logistical and resource concerns, arguing that managing ballot drop boxes created more hassle than it was worth. As a result, both towns will go forward without drop boxes for the November election, leaving voters to use alternative absentee voting methods.
The debate is also playing out in Pennsylvania, where several counties have chosen not to use drop boxes in the upcoming election. Westmoreland County made this decision as early as March, pointing to the high costs associated with operating and transporting ballots from the boxes.
Other counties, including Beaver, Butler, and Fayette, have also opted out, citing similar concerns. This decision has sparked conversations among Pennsylvania voters about the impact it will have on absentee and early voting participation in those areas. The absence of drop boxes could place greater pressure on other voting systems, as county officials aim to maintain election security while managing the costs of the process.
In Wyoming, Secretary of State Chuck Gray has taken a firm stance against drop boxes. In June, Gray rescinded a previous directive that allowed for their use, stating that they are neither safe nor secure according to the Wyoming Election Code. He has also argued that drop boxes do not have a statutory basis for absentee voting.
Gray’s decision was met with opposition from the County Clerks’ Association of Wyoming. The association’s president, Malcolm Ervin, countered that the election code permits the use of drop boxes at the discretion of individual county clerks. He also expressed frustration with the lack of legislative clarity on the matter. Gray remains resolute in his belief that drop boxes should not be part of Wyoming’s future elections, citing the need for security and trust in the process.
Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan has decided to delay the trial of former President Donald Trump in the election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith until after the 2024 presidential election.
The trial, originally expected to take place earlier this year, has now been postponed in the wake of a superseding indictment and a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming presidential immunity for acts performed in office, as Fox News reports.
In a status hearing held Thursday morning at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the decision to delay was made official. Trump's legal team pleaded not guilty on his behalf, though the former president did not attend the hearing. Smith, who is leading the case, was present in the courtroom.
The trial stems from Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Smith recently issued a revised indictment that narrows the previous charges against the former president. This comes after a Supreme Court ruling that determined a president cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while in office.
The new indictment, which was presented by a grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in the case, adjusts several key points from the initial charges. It removes allegations involving Department of Justice (DOJ) officials and refines Trump's role as a candidate at the time of the alleged offenses. Discussions of this updated indictment have done little to advance the trial timeline.
The charges Trump faces are related to multiple conspiracies and obstruction of justice. However, the specifics of these accusations have been reshaped under the latest legal developments, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.
Deadlines for filings from both Trump’s legal team and federal prosecutors have been set for Nov. 7, after the election. This timeline underscores the court’s decision to ensure that the trial does not interfere with the ongoing political process. Trump is actively seeking a second term in office, and the trial delay will allow him to continue his campaign without the looming threat of immediate legal proceedings.
The delay has led to widespread speculation about the potential impact on the political landscape. With the trial now scheduled after the presidential election, many are questioning how this development may affect voter perceptions and the election outcome.
The trial is just one of several legal challenges Trump is facing, but this particular case, tied to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, is seen as especially significant. The delay gives Trump more time to build his defense, while federal prosecutors will continue preparing their case during this extended period.
Trump’s defense team, having pleaded not guilty on his behalf, has argued that the charges against him are politically motivated. The revised indictment, they contend, simplifies their defense strategy by removing some of the broader allegations. However, the charges of conspiracy and obstruction remain serious, with the potential for significant legal consequences if Trump is found guilty.
While the former president has not personally appeared in court for the latest proceedings, his legal team has been actively engaged in the process. Smith, who has been leading the charge against Trump, has been at the forefront of pushing the case forward, even as the trial faces delays.
As this high-profile legal battle continues, it will likely remain a focal point of public and political discourse. Both sides have signaled that they are preparing for a lengthy legal process, regardless of the outcome of the 2024 election.
Ultimately, the trial's postponement, alongside the new indictment and Supreme Court ruling, has introduced additional complexities to an already intricate legal and political situation. Trump’s trial will be closely watched as it unfolds after the election, with implications for both the legal system and the nation's political future.
In a recent hearing for former President Donald Trump's January 6 case, Judge Tanya Chutkan acknowledged that her ruling on pending immunity issues is likely to face appeals regardless of her decision.
The hearing, which took place on Thursday, was the first since the federal case was paused in December, according to The Daily Caller.
During the proceedings, attorneys debated the timeline for addressing various unresolved issues that must be settled before the case can proceed.
These issues include applying the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, evaluating the constitutionality of special counsel Jack Smith's appointment, and determining the legitimacy of two charges related to an obstruction statute that was recently narrowed by the Supreme Court.
Judge Chutkan acknowledged the potential for an appeals process, noting that her decision carries the risk of being overturned regardless of the outcome.
This acknowledgment came in response to Trump's attorney, John Lauro, emphasizing that there was no need to rush to judgment. Chutkan pointed out that the case was far from sprinting to a finish line, noting the difficulty in even considering a trial date due to the "looming appellate issues."
The defense team proposed a pre-trial schedule that would extend into 2025, focusing on addressing legal issues first. These issues include determining whether Trump's conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence are subject to immunity and examining the legitimacy of special counsel Jack Smith's appointment.
In contrast to the defense's approach, special counsel Jack Smith's team argued for a more expedited process.
They suggested that the government should file the first brief within a couple of weeks, explaining why presidential immunity does not apply to the superseding indictment. This would then allow the defense to respond subsequently.
Last week, Smith filed a superseding indictment designed to address the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. While maintaining the same four charges, the updated indictment emphasized that Trump was acting outside his official duties and omitted allegations related to his attempt to leverage the Justice Department, which the Supreme Court explicitly found to be covered by immunity.
Throughout the hearing, Judge Chutkan repeatedly emphasized that she would not allow the upcoming election to influence her decision on how to proceed with the case. She stated:
We have had a year of a stay. There needs to be some forward motion in this case, regardless of when an election is scheduled.
Chutkan expressed her inclination to handle multiple issues concurrently rather than spreading them out over time. She indicated her intention to issue a schedule as soon as possible, potentially by the end of the day.
The case has been on hold since December to allow time for Trump to appeal Chutkan's denial of his motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in July, which found that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken in office, the case returned to Chutkan's court in August.
A high-ranking spokesperson for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office has been caught on a hidden camera expressing strong criticism of District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
According to The New York Post, Nicholas Biase, the chief spokesman, was recorded describing the case against Trump as "nonsense" and accusing Bragg of conducting "lawfare" for political gain.
The secret recordings, made on July 31 and August 14, 2024, were released by conservative podcaster Steven Crowder on social media. In the footage, Biase is seen conversing with an unidentified woman at what appears to be a bar, unaware that he was being recorded. The spokesman's candid remarks have shed light on potential internal disagreements within the justice system regarding the high-profile case against the former president.
In the recorded conversation, Biase, who claims to have known Bragg for 15 years and previously worked with him, did not mince words when discussing the hush money case against Trump. He described the prosecution as a "perversion of justice" and suggested that Bragg's motivations were politically driven rather than based on legal merit.
Biase accused the Manhattan District Attorney's office of manipulating charges to build a case against Trump. He expressed concern that the prosecutor might attempt to imprison the former president, predicting that such an outcome would be "ugly." The spokesman's comments reflect a stark contrast between his public role and his private opinions on this high-profile case.
The Department of Justice official also speculated about Bragg's future political ambitions, suggesting that the Trump prosecution was a means to gain public recognition. Biase's remarks imply a belief that the case has more to do with advancing Bragg's career than serving justice.
Biase's critique extended beyond the Manhattan case, encompassing other state-level prosecutions against Trump. He described the justice system at the state level as "the Wild West," implying a lack of restraint and professionalism compared to federal proceedings.
The spokesman highlighted the absence of certain federal rules at the state level, particularly the 90-day rule that restricts decisions on cases that could affect an election. This comparison suggests a belief that state-level prosecutions are more susceptible to political influence and less bound by ethical constraints.
Biase also commented on the separate civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James against Trump. He argued that the practices Trump was accused of were common among New York real estate professionals and that the prosecution was unprecedented and unjust.
The leaked recordings raise questions about the unity of opinion within law enforcement agencies regarding high-profile political cases. Biase's comments, if accurately represented, indicate a significant rift between federal and state-level perspectives on the prosecution of former President Trump.
These revelations could potentially impact public perception of the ongoing legal proceedings against Trump. The suggestion that a high-ranking official in the Department of Justice views the state's case as politically motivated might lend credence to claims of unfair treatment by Trump and his supporters.
Nicholas Biase stated in his apology:
I was recently made aware of a video where I regretfully made some statements in a private and social setting that don't reflect my views about two local and state prosecutions. I said these things in an effort to please and impress someone I just met, who was secretly filming me. I'm deeply sorry to the local and state law enforcement officials working on these matters, who deserve more respect than I showed them. I should have known better.
The incident serves as a reminder of the sensitive nature of ongoing legal proceedings and the potential consequences of private opinions being made public, especially for those in positions of authority within the justice system.
In a recent cybersecurity incident, Eric Trump took to social media to alert followers about unauthorized access to the X accounts of his wife Lara and sister Tiffany.
According to The Daily Beast, the hacking event occurred on September 4, 2024, causing concern within the Trump family and their supporters.
Eric Trump's initial response was one of panic, as he posted a warning message on his own X account. He emphatically stated that the situation was fraudulent and that both Lara and Tiffany's profiles had been compromised. The urgency in his tone reflected the potential damage that could result from unauthorized posts made through these high-profile accounts.
The breach appeared to be centered around a cryptocurrency project associated with the Trump family. The hackers posted fake links related to a genuine Trump crypto initiative called World Liberty Financial, which had been recently teased by former President Donald Trump. However, these links were not legitimate and instead directed users to websites registered to The Pirate Bay dark-web marketplace.
World Liberty Financial's official account also acknowledged the breach, warning followers not to interact with any links or purchase tokens shared from the compromised profiles. This quick response demonstrated the company's awareness of the potential financial risks to their supporters.
The incident highlighted the vulnerabilities that can exist even in accounts belonging to prominent political figures. It also showcased the speed at which misinformation can spread through social media platforms, especially when associated with well-known names.
Following the hacking incident, the X platform, formerly known as Twitter, took swift action to secure the compromised accounts.
Eric Trump later praised the platform's response, noting that they had locked down both Lara and Tiffany's accounts within minutes of the breach being detected.
Eric Trump posted:
@Twitter was amazing and has locked down @LarsLeaTrump and @TiffanyATrump accounts within minutes.
This positive acknowledgment from Eric Trump was particularly noteworthy given the Trump family's close relationship with X owner Elon Musk, who acquired the platform in 2022 and has been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
The hacking incident occurred against a backdrop of increasing cryptocurrency-related scams. Just days before, a British newspaper had reported on scammers hijacking the Trump-backed crypto company's Telegram account, planting fake ads offering currency "airdrops" or token sales.
These events underscore the ongoing challenges faced by both social media platforms and cryptocurrency projects in maintaining security and protecting users from fraudulent activities. They also highlight the importance of user vigilance in verifying the authenticity of cryptocurrency-related offers, even when they appear to come from trusted sources.
As the 2024 presidential election approaches, incidents like these serve as a reminder of the potential for digital disruptions to impact political discourse and campaign activities. The quick resolution of this particular breach may have mitigated immediate damage, but it raises questions about the broader implications of cybersecurity in the political sphere.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign has quietly altered its strategy, withdrawing resources from three previously targeted states following a surge in support for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.
According to The Guardian, the Republican candidate has reduced efforts in Minnesota, Virginia, and New Hampshire, states he had confidently claimed he could win when Joe Biden was the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The tactical shift comes as recent polling data suggests these states may now be out of reach for Trump. The campaign has instead chosen to focus its resources on a smaller number of battleground states, particularly the "blue wall" states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which were crucial to Biden's victory in 2020.
Trump's campaign has significantly adjusted its resource allocation, moving funds and attention away from states that were once considered potential flips. The focus has now shifted to states deemed critical for securing an Electoral College victory in November.
Pennsylvania, with its 19 electoral votes, has become a primary target for the Trump campaign. A recent CNN poll shows that Trump and Harris are tied at 47% each in the state, underscoring their importance in the upcoming election. Additionally, the campaign is intensifying efforts in North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona - Sun Belt states where Trump's previously substantial leads over Biden have narrowed since Harris became the Democratic nominee.
Maga Inc., a Super PAC supporting Trump, has invested $16 million in advertising in North Carolina alone. This substantial expenditure comes as polls indicate Harris is close to drawing even in a state that Democrats have only carried once in presidential elections since 1980.
The shift in campaign strategy marks a significant change from the optimism displayed at the Republican National Convention in July. At that time, Trump's campaign team spoke confidently about winning Minnesota, Virginia, and New Hampshire, all of which have been carried by Democrats in recent presidential elections.
An internal Trump campaign memo, drafted before the June debate in Atlanta, had outlined potential pathways for Trump to win Minnesota and Virginia. The campaign's optimism was partially based on the presence of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose campaign was initially thought to pose a greater threat to Biden.
However, the political landscape has shifted dramatically since then. Harris replaced Biden as the Democratic nominee and chose Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate, bolstering local support. Additionally, Kennedy has suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump, further altering the electoral calculus.
The ascension of Kamala Harris to the top of the Democratic ticket has had a profound impact on the race. Her nomination has energized Democratic supporters, leading to a surge in popularity that has given her a small but consistent national poll lead.
Harris's campaign has also experienced a significant boost in fundraising, raising $540 million in August alone. This financial advantage has allowed the Democratic campaign to expand its operations and advertising efforts in key states. Lou Gargiulo, the co-chair of Trump's campaign in New Hampshire, commented on the shift in focus: "This election is going to be won in those seven swing states. That's where the effort's got to be put."
The statement reflects the Trump campaign's recognition of the need to concentrate resources on a narrower set of battleground states where the race remains competitive.
The reallocation of resources by the Trump campaign signifies a recognition of the changing electoral map. States that were once considered potential pickups are now being deprioritized in favor of defending traditionally competitive swing states. This strategic pivot also highlights the impact of Harris's nomination on the race. Her presence on the ticket has not only solidified Democratic support in some states but has also put pressure on Trump in areas where he previously held advantages.
Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, addressed the recent shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, during a campaign rally in New Hampshire on September 4, 2024.
According to Salon, Harris deviated from her prepared remarks to discuss the tragedy that claimed the lives of two students and two teachers, with at least nine more victims hospitalized.
Harris expressed her frustration with the ongoing issue of gun violence in schools, recounting her experiences visiting college campuses and discussing the topic with students. She emphasized the need to end what she called the "epidemic of gun violence" in the United States.
During her speech, Harris shared an anecdote from her previous campus visits, where she asked students about their experiences with active shooter drills. She noted that every student she encountered had participated in such drills during their K-12 education.
Harris stated:
I'm going off script right now, but listen. One of the things that I asked every time that I went to an auditorium … raise your hand if at any point from kindergarten to 12th grade you had to go through an active shooter training. Every hand went up.
The Vice President expressed her dismay at the reality that parents in the United States must worry about their children's safety when sending them to school.
The shooting at Apalachee High School involved a 14-year-old student, Colt Gray, who will be charged with murder and tried as an adult. Chris Hosey, the director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, reported that Gray used an AR-platform-style weapon in the attack, which took place on the school's football field.
While Georgia law prohibits minors from purchasing firearms, adults can obtain rifles, handguns, or shotguns without a permit or registration. Authorities have not disclosed how Gray acquired the weapon used in the shooting, though it was noted that his father kept hunting weapons at home but did not allow unsupervised access.
In addition to Harris's comments, other political figures have responded to the shooting. President Joe Biden issued a statement calling on Republicans to support gun control measures, including an assault weapons ban, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and expanded background checks for gun purchasers.
Former President Trump also commented on the incident via Truth Social, expressing sympathy for the victims but not addressing gun control policy.
The shooting has reignited the ongoing debate about gun control in the United States, with Democrats pushing for stricter regulations and Republicans generally opposing such measures.
Harris reiterated her stance on gun control during her rally speech:
It's just outrageous that every day in our country, in the United States of America, that parents have to send their children to school worried about whether or not their child will come home alive.
The Apalachee High School shooting marks the first major incident of its kind since Harris became the Democratic nominee for president, adding significance to her comments and potentially shaping the gun control debate in the upcoming election.
Former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, addressed criticisms during a Fox News town hall event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
As reported by The Independent, Trump repeatedly insisted that he and Vance were "not weird" in response to recent characterizations by political opponents.
The pre-taped event, moderated by Sean Hannity, aired on Wednesday and covered a range of topics, including immigration policy, economic plans, and Trump's upcoming debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Throughout the hour-long session, Trump made several controversial statements about his political rivals and reiterated his campaign promises.
Trump was quick to dismiss the "weird" label that had been applied to him and Vance by Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz. He emphasized their strength and solidity as candidates:
We're not weird. We are other things, perhaps, but we're not weird.
The former president then pivoted to discussing Walz's family, mentioning that Walz's brother and extended family had endorsed him. This shift in conversation was accompanied by Trump's praise for the appearance of Walz's family in a photo where they wore "Walz's for Trump" T-shirts.
During the town hall, Trump also took aim at Vice President Kamala Harris, criticizing her border policies and economic plans. He made several unsubstantiated claims about migrants entering the country and promised "the largest deportation in the history of the country" if re-elected.
Trump expressed strong opinions about Harris's economic proposals, warning of dire consequences if she were to become president. He claimed, "This country will end up in a depression if she becomes president, like 1929. She has no idea what the hell she's doing."
The former president also took the opportunity to attack Harris's father, referring to him as a "Marxist teacher of economics." This comment aligns with Trump's recent rhetoric, labeling the vice president as a "Marxist" and "communist."
The town hall comes just days before Trump and Harris are set to debate on September 10, hosted by ABC News. Trump used the Fox News platform to criticize ABC, calling it "the most dishonest network, the meanest, the nastiest" and singling out anchor George Stephanopoulos as "a nasty guy."
In a moment that garnered attention, Trump briefly went off-topic when distracted by a mosquito on stage. He expressed his dislike for the insects, seamlessly connecting this to his political message.
I hate mosquitos. I'm surprised, I didn't think we had... We don't like those mosquitoes running around. We want nothing to do with them — and we want nothing to do with bad politicians that hate our country, too.
The town hall event provided Trump with a platform to address his supporters directly, reiterate his campaign promises, and respond to criticisms from his opponents. As the presidential race continues to heat up, such appearances are likely to play a crucial role in shaping public perception and campaign narratives leading up to the November election.
In a dramatic development, FBI agents simultaneously raided the homes of two high-ranking aides to New York City Mayor Eric Adams early Wednesday morning.
The New York Post first reported on the raids targeting First Deputy Mayor Sheena Wright and Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Phil Banks.
The pre-dawn raids occurred around 5 a.m. on September 5, 2024, with federal agents descending on Wright's West 143rd Street residence in Harlem and Banks' home in Queens.
While the FBI declined to comment on the specific reasons for the searches, the action has sent shockwaves through City Hall and raised new questions about potential wrongdoing within Mayor Adams' inner circle.
Wright, as first deputy mayor, is the highest-ranking Adams aide to have her home searched by federal authorities. Banks, a longtime ally of the mayor, oversees public safety matters for the administration. The simultaneous raids on two such senior officials suggest a widening scope of federal scrutiny.
This latest development comes amid ongoing federal probes into Mayor Adams' 2021 campaign fundraising practices and allegations of a kickback scheme involving City Hall and the Turkish government. While Adams himself has not been accused of wrongdoing, the expanding investigations have now ensnared at least five of his close associates.
In July, federal prosecutors issued subpoenas to Adams, City Hall officials, and his campaign team as part of their inquiry into 2021 election fundraising. The mayor's electronic devices were also seized during that phase of the investigation.
A source familiar with the matter indicated that Wednesday's raids do not appear to be directly related to the ongoing Turkey investigation. However, the exact focus of this latest federal action remains unclear.
City Hall has attempted to distance the mayor from the unfolding situation. Lisa Zornberg, City Hall Chief Counsel, released a statement addressing the raids:
Investigators have not indicated to us the mayor or his staff are targets of any investigation. As a former member of law enforcement, the mayor has repeatedly made clear that all members of the team need to follow the law.
Despite these assurances, the raids have undoubtedly cast a shadow over the Adams administration and raised questions about the extent of potential impropriety within the mayor's inner circle.
The federal action has also brought renewed attention to the personal relationships and past controversies surrounding some of Mayor Adams' top appointees. Sheena Wright, whose home was raided, has been in a long-term relationship with Schools Chancellor David Banks. David Banks is the brother of Phil Banks, the other target of Wednesday's raids.
Phil Banks has previously been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a separate federal police corruption case years ago, adding another layer of complexity to the current situation. The interconnected nature of these relationships has raised eyebrows and prompted questions about potential conflicts of interest within the administration.
The FBI raids on two of Mayor Eric Adams' closest aides represent a significant escalation in the federal investigations surrounding his administration. While the specific focus of these searches remains unclear, they have undoubtedly sent shockwaves through City Hall and raised serious questions about potential wrongdoing at the highest levels of the New York City government. The coming weeks and months will likely prove crucial in determining the full extent of any alleged impropriety and its potential impact on the mayor's ability to govern effectively.
A top Department of Justice spokesman was caught on camera criticizing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of former President Donald Trump, calling the case "nonsense" and accusing Bragg of conducting "lawfare" for political gain.
Nicholas Biase, the chief spokesman for the Manhattan US Attorney's Office, was secretly recorded expressing his views on the Trump prosecution. According to the New York Post, conservative podcaster Steven Crowder released the footage on social media.
The recordings reportedly made on July 31 and August 14, 2024, show Biase in conversation with an unidentified woman at what appears to be a bar. In the footage, Biase, who claims to have known Bragg for 15 years and previously worked with him in the Southern District of New York, doesn't hold back in his criticism of the Manhattan DA's office.
Biase is heard saying, "Honestly, I think the case is nonsense." He goes on to accuse Bragg of "stacking charges" against Trump and rearranging facts to build a case, suggesting that the prosecution is more about political maneuvering than justice. The DOJ spokesman also speculates about Bragg's motivations, stating, "He wants to be, something ... a mayor? I'm not sure what he wants to be, but I know he's not happy just being the DA of New York County."
Biase's comments extend beyond criticism of Bragg to encompass broader concerns about the state-level justice system. He describes it as "the Wild West," contrasting it with federal-level procedures that prohibit decisions affecting elections within 90 days of voting.
The spokesman is particularly critical of the handling of Trump's case, predicting that the judge overseeing the trial, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan, will attempt to imprison the former president. "This guy is probably going to try to lock him [Trump] up. And there is going to be, it's going to be ugly," Biase says in the recording.
He also comments on the impact of the prosecution on Trump's political future, noting that while the charges were intended to harm Trump's candidacy, they have instead made him "more relevant."
Following the release of the recordings, Biase issued an apology for his comments. In a statement to the New York Post, he expressed regret for his remarks, saying they were made in a private setting to someone he had just met and in an attempt to "impress" them.
Biase said, "I was recently made aware of a video where I regretfully made some statements in a private and social setting that don't reflect my views about two local and state prosecutions."
He added, "I said these things in an effort to please and impress someone I just met, who was secretly filming me. I'm deeply sorry to the local and state law enforcement officials working on these matters, who deserve more respect than I showed them. I should have known better."
The controversy surrounding Biase's comments extends beyond the Manhattan case. Referring to the New York civil fraud case, Biase claims, "Every real estate person in New York does what he [Trump] did. Nobody's ever been charged with this ... You know, it's a perversion of justice."
He is equally critical of the Georgia case, describing it as a "travesty of justice" and calling Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis "a joke." These comments from a high-ranking DOJ spokesman raise questions about the perception of these cases within legal circles and their potential impact on Trump's political future.
The revelation of Biase's comments adds a new dimension to the ongoing legal battles surrounding former President Trump. It highlights the contentious nature of these prosecutions and raises questions about their motivations and potential political implications. The incident also underscores the challenges of maintaining professional discretion in an era of ubiquitous recording devices and social media. As the legal proceedings against Trump continue to unfold, this controversy may influence public perception of the cases and the institutions involved in prosecuting them.