Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee allegedly withheld evidence that President Donald Trump had tried to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops for the safety of the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021.
This concealed evidence clashed with the committee's public narrative and was revealed in a hidden transcript and testimony from Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato.
Representative Liz Cheney, who was a key member of the January 6 Committee, attended and took part in an interview with Anthony Ornato on January 28, 2022. According to The Federalist, Ornato revealed that President Trump had suggested deploying thousands of troops to maintain order during the Capitol events.
Cheney and the committee had publicly asserted they had "no evidence" of Trump’s offer of 10,000 National Guard troops. However, Ornato’s testimony provided a starkly different account.
Ornato detailed that White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asked Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser if additional troops were necessary. Bowser declined, requesting only a limited, non-armed National Guard presence.
Ornato's account underscored that Meadows and Trump were frustrated with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller's slow deployment response during the Capitol breach.
Further, the January 6 Committee allegedly misrepresented or suppressed critical parts of Ornato's interview, painting an inaccurate picture. Reports indicated that fewer than half of the 1,000 interviews the committee conducted are publicly available.
Representative Barry Loudermilk has been a vocal critic of the committee’s actions, accusing them of hiding evidence contradicting their narrative. Loudermilk is now leading an investigation into their conduct.
Ornato’s testimony mentioned Trump’s efforts to set up a quick reaction force at Joint Base Andrews and emphasized how President Trump was concerned about the potential size of the crowd expected on January 6.
Ornato recounted that Meadows continually asked, “Where is the National Guard?” and was insistent on securing the Capitol. Despite these testimonies, Cheney’s final report maintained that the Department of Defense did not intentionally delay deploying the National Guard.
Kash Patel’s testimony supported Ornato’s claims, contradicting the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that dismissed the matter due to the suppressed evidence. Cheney's report also contended that Trump did not order National Guard deployment.
Stories and conspiracy theories about Ornato emerged from committee allies before further interviews could be conducted, which many view as an attempt to discredit conflicting testimonies.
Recent revelations have caused significant controversy, with Representative Loudermilk stressing the need to uncover all facts in his investigation. More testimonies and previously withheld documents have raised concerns about the transparency and ethics of the January 6 Committee. The discovery of evidence regarding Trump's request for National Guard troops underscores the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation.
Jury deliberations will continue Tuesday in Hunter Biden's federal gun crime trial, where he may testify as the defense calls witnesses this week.
Jurors are deliberating in a criminal case against Hunter Biden concerning a gun he purchased in 2018 while allegedly addicted to crack cocaine.
Fox News reported that jurors began discussing the case Monday but only deliberated briefly. They resumed their deliberations on Tuesday, focusing on three felony charges related to Biden’s 2018 gun purchase.
The trial occurs in the shadow of President Joe Biden's re-election campaign, drawing significant media and political attention. Hunter Biden is accused of buying the firearm during a period when he was purportedly addicted to drugs, which prosecutors argue disqualified him from legally making the purchase.
Prosecutor Leo Wise presented what he claimed was compelling evidence, including testimony from Hunter's ex-wife, former girlfriends, and photographic evidence featuring drug paraphernalia. Wise stated, “He knew he was using drugs. That’s what the evidence shows. And he knew he was addicted to drugs. That’s what the evidence shows.”
Hunter Biden's defense lawyer, Abbe Lowell, countered this argument by stressing that Hunter did not regard himself as an "addict" at the time of the purchase. Lowell implored the jury to consider the law requirements in Harris’s case, emphasizing, “With my last breath in this case, I ask for the only verdict that will hold the prosecutors to what the law requires of them” — a verdict of not guilty.
The Biden family, including First Lady Jill Biden, attended the trial regularly, showing their support for Hunter. Prosecutors argued the family’s presence in the court is not considered part of the evidence.
Prosecutor Wise remarked poignantly, “All of this is not evidence. People sitting in the gallery are not evidence.” The defense was steadfast, insisting the case presented by prosecutors heavily relied on circumstantial evidence.
Despite the accusations, it was noted that no one saw Hunter use drugs during the 11 days in which he possessed the firearm, which Hallie Biden, Hunter's sister-in-law, later discarded. They also highlighted that Hunter completed a rehabilitation program by the end of August 2018.
Hunter Biden had previously aimed to secure a plea deal in 2023 to resolve the investigation. Had this agreement succeeded, it would have only resulted in probation.
However, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika’s scrutiny led to the collapse of the plea deal. In the wake of the deal's failure, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed David Weiss as a special counsel, which resulted in Hunter's indictment in September 2023.
The current legal charges, which are serious and could result in up to 25 years in prison, are a significant escalation compared to the proposed plea deal, which would have merely resulted in probation charges. The jury continues their deliberations on the intricate and politically charged case. The anticipation of the verdict holds significant weight, especially given the broader implications for President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign.
Summarizing the case, Hunter Biden faces three felony charges concerning a 2018 gun purchase. Prosecutors allege he was addicted to drugs at the time of the purchase, while his defense argues against such claims, stating there is considerable reliance on circumstantial evidence. Key witnesses and photographic evidence have been pivotal in the prosecution’s case while Hunter’s defense counters with arguments based on his personal interpretation at the time and completion of a rehab program in August 2018.
A growing number of Democratic lawmakers are preparing to boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming speech to a joint session of Congress.
Axios reported that the expected boycott of Netanyahu's address is gaining momentum within the Democratic Party. The controversy primarily stems from Netanyahu's approach to the Gaza war, which has been a point of contention among many Democrats.
The event brings back memories of 2015 when 58 Democratic lawmakers opted to skip Netanyahu's speech under similar circumstances.
Significant opposition within the Democratic ranks points to an unprecedented level of discontent with the decision to invite Netanyahu. Representative Pramila Jayapal, the Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, forecasted a "large" boycott, emphasizing the heightened emotions among lawmakers who oppose the invitation.
Representative Jim McGovern has confirmed he will not attend, expressing a wish that the speech would not occur. Progressive members, who were critical of the idea from its inception in March, stand firmly against Netanyahu’s appearance, viewing it as a divisive move by the Republicans.
Some Democrats feel torn, balancing their support for Israel with their objections to Netanyahu's war policies. This internal conflict has led some to remain undecided, with their attendance potentially hinging on developments in Gaza, particularly the prospect of a ceasefire.
The memory of the 2015 boycott looms large as many of the lawmakers who skipped Netanyahu's previous address are now planning to do the same. An anonymous House Democrat indicated the fluid and unpredictable nature of the situation, with members likely to make last-minute decisions based on the state of the Gaza conflict.
This source suggested that if the situation in Gaza remains unresolved, up to 100 Democrats could choose to boycott. Additionally, discussions are ongoing about whether some Democrats might go further by actively disrupting the speech.
Representative Mark Pocan has called for a more nuanced approach, proposing that engaging in dialogue and clearly highlighting Netanyahu’s actions might be more effective than a simple boycott. He cautioned against leaving seats vacant, which could be occupied by Republican staffers.
Representative Dan Kildee acknowledged the likelihood of some Democrats boycotting but emphasized his duty to attend, reflecting a sentiment among some lawmakers who feel their presence in Congress is obligatory. The anticipated boycott varies widely among Democrats, with some committed to protesting while others remain conflicted.
Despite initial reports suggesting a June 13 date coinciding with the Jewish holiday Shavuot, Netanyahu's speech date remains unconfirmed. Taylor Haulsee, a spokesperson from the Speaker's office, stated that coordination is ongoing with all relevant parties to finalize a date for Netanyahu’s address.
The potential boycott of Netanyahu's speech underscores deep divisions within Congress over his policies and presence. Democrats are increasingly vocal about their opposition, with significant portions planning to boycott or disrupt the event. The factor of ongoing Gaza conflicts weighs heavily on lawmakers' decisions, making the situation fluid and highly unpredictable.
Representative Jayapal and others advocate for a substantial protest, reinforcing the prominent discontent with the Republicans' invitation. McGovern, Pocan, and Kildee provide a spectrum of responses, from outright boycott to careful consideration and obligatory attendance, encapsulating the varied stances within the Democratic caucus.
Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia suggests that the state could be a pivotal battleground in the 2024 presidential election, as recent polling indicates a dead heat between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
In a shift from recent elections, Virginia may well be in play for the GOP in 2024, according to the Republican chief executive, as Fox News reports.
Virginia has not been won by a Republican presidential candidate since George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. For the past four elections, Democrats have maintained control, including Biden's 10-point win over Trump in 2020.
Youngkin expressed optimism about Trump's prospects in Virginia during an interview at a Republican Governors Association conference in New Orleans. A Fox News poll conducted from June 1-4 revealed Biden and Trump each garnered 48% support in the state. In a race with multiple candidates, Biden had 42%, Trump 41%, Robert K. Kennedy 9%, and both Jill Stein and Cornel West each held 2%.
Youngkin's 2021 gubernatorial victory marked a significant shift in Virginia politics. The GOP also won the lieutenant governor and attorney general races and flipped the state House of Delegates. However, in November 2023, Democrats regained the majority in the state House and maintained control of the state Senate.
Youngkin has fully endorsed Trump and plans to actively campaign for him. He emphasized the importance of common-sense conservative policies, which he believes resonate with Virginia voters. Youngkin's political future has been the subject of speculation, with some considering him a potential White House contender in 2028. However, he has stated his priority remains being the best governor for Virginia.
Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, another potential 2028 GOP presidential candidate, certified Biden’s victory in Georgia in 2020, despite Trump’s objections. Kemp faced opposition from Trump in Georgia's 2022 gubernatorial primary but won decisively. He remains focused on securing GOP victories in Georgia for the 2024 elections, emphasizing the need to maintain Republican majorities in the state.
Kemp, following Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts, remarked that the election outcome should be decided by the voters. His focus is on the people and ensuring Georgia remains a Republican stronghold.
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a frequent critic of Trump, supported Nikki Haley before she exited the presidential race in March. Despite his criticisms, Sununu plans to vote for Trump and is concentrating on ensuring GOP control of the New Hampshire Statehouse. He stressed the importance of winning statehouse races and having a strong Republican presence in the legislature.
Youngkin highlighted the dramatic change in Virginia's political landscape since Biden's victory in 2020. He noted that the current competitiveness in the state is a significant development. With months to go before the election, Youngkin expressed excitement about Virginia being in play and the potential impact on the 2024 presidential race.
The governor's commitment to Trump and his enthusiasm for the 2024 campaign underscores his belief in the power of conservative policies. His focus remains on governing Virginia effectively and supporting Republican candidates at all levels.
In summary, Gov. Glenn Youngkin sees Virginia as a key battleground in the 2024 presidential election, with a recent poll showing Biden and Trump tied. The state has not been won by a Republican presidential candidate since 2004, but Youngkin's optimistic outlook and strong support for Trump suggest a potential shift.
The GOP's recent gains in Virginia's gubernatorial and legislative races highlight the state's evolving political landscape.
Tony Wied, a candidate endorsed by Donald Trump for a Wisconsin congressional seat, is facing accusations from a fellow Republican of misleading voters during his signature-gathering campaign.
Tensions are on within the Republican Party as accusations of deceit and strategic attacks dominate the race to replace former Rep. Mike Gallagher, as the Washington Examiner reports.
Tony Wied is under fire after a complaint filed by Tony Theisen claims he misrepresented his nomination papers while collecting signatures. Wied, running for the seat vacated by Gallagher, now finds himself in a heated dispute with rival Andre Jacque.
The complaint, filed by Theisen, a volunteer for Jacque, alleges that Wied's volunteers told voters the petition supported assistance for homeless people. Wied's campaign strongly denies these claims, accusing Jacque of using unethical tactics.
A spokesperson for Wied's campaign noted that career politicians will stop at nothing to maintain power. Parallels were drawn between Jacque’s reported actions and alleged tactics used against Trump in previous elections. Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump allies assert that Jacque is mimicking Democratic strategies to undermine Republicans.
Andre Jacque’s campaign firmly rejects any suggestions of wrongdoing. Will Terry, Jacque’s campaign manager, emphasized Jacque’s firm commitment to voter integrity. Terry insists the issue at hand is whether Wied’s campaign engaged in any fraudulent behavior.
Wied’s supporters argue that their signature collection process was transparent and legally compliant. Despite the controversy, it appears unlikely that the disputed signatures would ultimately disqualify Wied from the ballot.
The back-and-forth has intensified with figures like Donald Trump Jr. joining the fray. He criticized Jacque, equating his methods to those of Democrats who have previously targeted Trump-endorsed candidates. A person close to Trump echoed these sentiments, calling Jacque’s actions a reflection of the "Biden lawfare playbook."
At the heart of the complaint, Theisen alleges that Wied's volunteers misrepresented their petition. Some voters reportedly signed without thoroughly understanding the document, leading to a challenge of 425 signatures. Wied’s supporters refute these claims, emphasizing the legality and clarity of their campaign materials.
Despite the allegations, it is expected that Wied will remain on the ballot. The seat up for grabs is considered securely Republican, with the primary winner anticipated to face Democrat Kristin Lyerly in the November election.
The current dispute highlights underlying tensions within the Republican Party. Allegations of dirty campaign tricks and strategic political maneuvering are drawing significant attention as the election heats up.
While Jacque maintains his innocence regarding the complaint, Trump's allies remain vocal in their accusations. Wied’s campaign continues to paint the situation as a form of political sabotage designed to eliminate a Trump-endorsed candidate.
In summary, Tony Wied is accused of misleading voters during his nomination campaign. Andre Jacque denies any underhanded involvement in the complaint. Trump’s allies accuse Jacque of utilizing Democratic strategies to undermine Wied. Despite the scrutiny, Wied is expected to stay in the race, with the primary victor likely facing Kristin Lyerly in November.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) is facing an unprecedented challenge.
The party is preparing for the possibility that former President Donald Trump, its presumptive nominee, might be incarcerated during the convention in July.
According to The Post Millenial, RNC chair Michael Whatley revealed on Tuesday that contingency planning is underway following Trump's conviction on 34 felony charges linked to alleged "hush money" payments.
Trump’s legal woes took a significant turn last week. A New York jury found him guilty of altering business records to obscure an alleged extramarital affair dating back to his 2016 campaign. His sentencing, scheduled by Judge Juan Merchan, is set for July 11.
The GOP convention is set to commence soon thereafter in Milwaukee. With the convention's proximity to Trump's sentencing date, the RNC is proactively charting out alternative scenarios.
Michael Whatley voiced the RNC’s steadfast confidence in Trump’s nomination. He emphasized, “We expect that Donald Trump is going to be in Milwaukee and he’s going to be able to accept that nomination.”
While expressing optimism about Trump’s presence at the convention, Whatley acknowledged the RNC's need for fallback measures. He noted that contingency planning is already underway. “Yeah, we’re working on that right now,” he mentioned, underscoring the criticality of preparedness.
The RNC’s chair is spearheading this strategic process personally. Whatley plans to travel to Milwaukee for a series of crucial talks, aiming to ensure seamless convention proceedings, despite Trump’s legal constraints.
Whatley believes that irrespective of Trump’s physical location, the convention remains committed to showcasing Trump’s vision for America. His focus remains on ensuring the event serves as a platform to propel the Republican campaign.
Simultaneously, House Speaker Mike Johnson has advocated for the Supreme Court's intervention in Trump’s legal battle, highlighting the high stakes and broader implications for the GOP’s future.
Meanwhile, RNC co-chair Lara Trump, a strong advocate for the former president, affirmed his nomination certainty, stating, “We have to make plans as they happen, and we’re going to have several contingency plans.” She emphasized that Trump’s location wouldn’t prevent his nomination, asserting he will be the Republican nominee whether it's “Trump Tower in Manhattan, Mar-a-Lago, or our convention in Milwaukee.”
As the convention draws near, the RNC is navigating a complex landscape marked by legal entanglements and presidential ambitions. Regardless of the hurdles, the committee’s leadership remains resolute in its objective to nominate Trump.
In summary, the RNC is preparing for former President Donald Trump’s potential imprisonment as the GOP convention approaches. The committee’s executives, including Michael Whatley and Lara Trump, have expressed confidence in Trump’s nomination, regardless of his physical location at that time. The GOP remains focused on meeting any unforeseen challenges head-on and ensuring a seamless nomination process in Milwaukee this July.
New Jersey Congressman Ronald Payne Jr. posthumously won his uncontested primary bid to retain his congressional seat for the 10th district.
According to The Post Millenial, Ronald Payne Jr., a Democrat representing New Jersey's 10th district, died in April at the age of 65 due to a heart attack.
He was a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus and had no opponents in the Democratic primary for his congressional seat. Following his death, a special election will be held on July 16 to elect a new representative.
The filing deadline for the primary ballot was in March, before Payne's untimely death. Because of this, Payne remained the sole Democratic candidate on the ticket, ultimately winning the primary posthumously.
Payne had held his seat since 2012, continuing a family legacy after succeeding his father, who represented the district for 20 years until his own passing while in office. The district includes Newark, Hudson, Union, and Essex counties and has been a Democratic stronghold since 1947.
In response to Payne's death, a special election is scheduled for July 16. This election aims to fill his now-vacant seat, with about a dozen Democrats vying for the position. Republican Carmen Bucco has secured the GOP nomination for the 10th district and will face the eventual Democratic nominee in the general election.
In addition to the special election, other primaries were held in New Jersey. In the GOP presidential race, former President Donald Trump ran unopposed. Incumbent President Joe Biden received Democratic support, though there were 41,461 ballots cast for "uncommitted" delegates in a stance related to opposition against Israel.
At the state level, Andy Kim emerged victorious in the Democratic primary for a New Jersey Senate seat. On the Republican side, Curtis Bashaw won the GOP primary for the same position.
The special election to replace Payne is set to draw significant interest, given the district's historical importance and continuous Democratic representation. The multitude of candidates reflects the district's vibrant political environment and its importance to the Democratic party.
Payne's death leaves a significant gap in the 10th district's leadership. Subsequent candidates will have to match his service, which was marked by community engagement and political acumen.
The special election promises a vigorous race, with about a dozen Democrats already in the running for Payne's seat. Historically, the district has consistently leaned Democratic, making the Democratic primary particularly competitive.
The special election on July 16 will determine who will take over the reins in a district that has seen Democratic leadership since 1947. With a dozen candidates aiming for the position, the 10th district remains a significant political prize.
This election will not only fill Payne's seat but possibly shape the course of future policies in Newark and the surrounding counties. As constituents prepare to vote, the legacy of Ronald Payne Jr. remains a central theme in the upcoming election.
Attorney General Merrick Garland is set to face intense questioning from the House Judiciary Committee. He will address issues related to Donald Trump's conviction and the refusal to release audio from President Joe Biden's special counsel interview.
According to Daily Mail, Garland's appearance before the committee marks his first since Trump's conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records over hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has proposed defunding all Trump-related prosecutions. This proposal aims to prevent funds from being used to prosecute former or current vice presidents or presidents.
The proposal targets prosecutions led by Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, special counsel Jack Smith, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene plans to lead an effort to block all federal funds to New York. Two House panels have already voted to advance a resolution to hold Garland in contempt for not releasing the Biden interview audio.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) released a transcript but withheld the recording of Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. Garland has stated that the DOJ went to great lengths to provide information to the committee. He also justified the refusal to release the audio.
Trump's jury of seven men and five women reached their verdict last Thursday. Sentencing for Trump is scheduled for July 11. This trial is the first criminal trial faced by a former U.S. President.
Trump's legal team plans to appeal the conviction. He will face appellate proceedings and remain free on bail during the appeal. Each charge Trump faced could result in up to four years in prison.
The DOJ warned that releasing Biden's interview audio could lead to AI manipulation of the President's words. They emphasized concerns over audio manipulation in a detailed court filing. Garland had a deadline of April 8 to submit the requested materials from Hur's interviews.
Garland's subpoena included transcripts, notes, and audio/video files related to Hur's and Zwonitzer's interviews with Biden. The DOJ provided transcripts but withheld audio from the Hur and Zwonitzer interviews. Republicans have demanded the release of the audio recordings.
The DOJ argued that releasing audio could deter future recorded interviews. Trump's charges were elevated to felonies due to an alleged attempt to influence the 2016 election. The judge may consider the precedent-setting nature of the case regarding Trump's potential imprisonment.
Garland stated, "We have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that a committee gets responses to their legitimate requests, but this is not one." The DOJ also noted, "The passage of time and advancements in audio, artificial intelligence, and 'deep fake' technologies only amplify concerns about malicious manipulation of audio files."
They added, "If the audio recording is released here, it is easy to foresee that it could be improperly altered, and that the altered file could be passed off as an authentic recording and widely distributed."
Garland's testimony will address the implications of Trump's conviction and the Biden interview controversy, potentially influencing future political and legal battles. The discussion will cover his handling of Trump's case, the refusal to release Biden's interview audio, and AI's impact on audio files. Key topics include the Judiciary Chairman's proposal to defund Trump-related prosecutions, the DOJ's defense of withholding audio recordings, and Republicans' demands for transparency.
Hunter Biden experienced a significant legal setback just hours before the start of his federal trial. Hunter Biden will stand trial on federal charges for allegedly lying about his drug use in a 2018 gun purchase form.
A judge ruled that Hunter Biden is promoting a "conspiracy theory" regarding his denial of drug addiction on a gun ownership form ahead of his trial for illegal firearm possession, Newsweek reported.
Biden, son of the current U.S. President, faces federal charges for allegedly lying on a 2018 federal firearm purchase form about his illegal drug use. Judge Maryellen Noreika's rulings on Sunday dealt a blow to Biden's defense strategies, dismissing various arguments aimed at undermining the prosecution's case.
The trial marks an unprecedented moment as Hunter Biden becomes the first child of a sitting U.S. president to undergo a criminal trial. The trial begins with jury selection on Monday. Biden's defense team is preparing to challenge the quality and validity of the prosecution's evidence.
Judge Noreika has ruled against Biden's motion to introduce an almost identical gun purchase form into evidence. Biden claimed that this form was a manipulated version intended to incriminate him, but the judge rejected this notion as unsupported and potentially prejudicial.
In her decision, Judge Noreika wrote that the jury should not consider the political views previously expressed by Adrian Palimere, the gun shop owner. Palimere had not witnessed Biden completing the purchase application, weakening the argument of bias.
The judge also found that Biden's suggestions of political bias and unsupported conspiracy theories were irrelevant and could cause confusion. These were particularly linked to accusations that federal forms were doctored to frame him.
Gordon Cleveland, a gun shop employee, will be a critical witness for the prosecution. Cleveland is expected to testify that he observed Hunter Biden fill out Section A of the Certified Form and deny being an unlawful drug user or addict in response to question 11e.
The defense asserts that the language used on the federal form was ambiguous, attempting to weaken the prosecution’s stance. However, Judge Noreika’s ruling undermines this aspect, focusing more on the factual evidence presented by Cleveland.
Meanwhile, the judge's rulings signify that unsupported rhetoric and attempts to cast doubt on the trial's integrity will not be entertained. She emphasized the need for the trial to focus on facts and dismiss irrelevant political distractions.
Judge Noreika stated clearly that the court would not entertain suggestions of nullification or irrelevant prejudices. Her rulings aimed to keep the proceedings focused solely on the legality of Biden’s actions concerning the gun purchase form. Judge Noreika concluded that the defense's theory about doctored forms was largely speculative and would present a significant risk of biasing the jury.
Summarizing the key points, Biden is charged with illegally possessing a firearm after allegedly lying about his drug use on a purchase form in 2018. Despite the defense's various strategies, none succeeded on Sunday.
As the trial proceeds, the focus will be on the tangible evidence regarding Biden's drug use at the time of the purchase and the integrity of the process he underwent. Witness testimonies like Cleveland's are likely to play a crucial role in determining the outcomes. Judge Noreika's rulings strongly frame the proceedings, emphasizing objectivity and factual integrity while dismissing politically charged and speculative defenses.
The Washington Examiner reported that after securing a felony conviction against Trump, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo of the Manhattan DA’s Office faces intensified scrutiny and criticism.
Formerly the number three official in the Biden administration's Department of Justice, Colangelo was drafted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to prosecute Trump. He took the lead at the trial, asserting Trump orchestrated a criminal act to influence the 2016 presidential election and then covered it up by falsifying business records.
A gag order was placed on Trump in March, limiting his ability to critique aspects of the prosecution, though he continued to lambast Colangelo publicly. Trump specifically questioned why a former DOJ official was involved in the Manhattan DA's case against him.
Colangelo, who joined the Manhattan DA's office in December 2022 to specialize in white-collar crime, had extensive prior knowledge of Trump. This stemmed from his work with Attorney General Letitia James in a civil lawsuit against Trump and the Trump Organization. He also served in the Obama administration and was compensated for political consulting by the Democratic National Committee in 2018.
The prosecution has not gone without criticism. Some sources have suggested that Colangelo’s transition from a high-ranking justice role to a line prosecutor in New York signifies potential coordination between the Biden administration and Bragg’s office. The timeline of events, including Colangelo’s quick job shift and the revival of the Trump case, has fueled these claims.
Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, called the prosecution "rigged," asserting that Colangelo's involvement was an attempt to politically interfere with the 2024 presidential election.
House Republicans are demanding testimony from Bragg and Colangelo regarding the Trump case in June. Meanwhile, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg initially hesitated to proceed with the investigation. However, after facing public pressure and enlisting Colangelo's aid, Bragg charged Trump in April 2023.
Critics highlight that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Federal Election Commission had previously decided not to charge Trump over the same hush money payment. Despite these earlier decisions, Bragg’s office pressed forward.
Furthermore, defense attorney Joey Jackson defended the prosecution's efforts, linking them to Manhattan's vested interest in pursuing white-collar crime. Jackson dismissed the notion of political bias and emphasized that the resulting guilty verdict was justified.
The fallout from Trump’s conviction has sharpened partisan lines. Trump’s supporters, including political allies, have cast Colangelo's involvement and the case itself as motivated by political vendetta. Conversely, proponents of Colangelo and the prosecution argue that it was a legitimate legal undertaking against a significant crime.
Colangelo’s ties to past Democratic administrations and involvement in prior legal actions against Trump add layers to the controversy. Whether these ties constitute evidence of bias or merely reflect a continuity of legal scrutiny remains hotly debated.
The intense focus on Colangelo and Bragg has broader implications for the public’s trust in the justice system, particularly regarding high-profile cases with potential political overtones. The credibility of the prosecution and the judicial process itself come under question amid such scrutiny.
In conclusion, Colangelo, a former top Biden DOJ official, played a crucial part in convicting Trump for a 2016 payment scandal that has reignited serious political debate. Accusations of political motivation have permeated discussions, with differing perspectives on whether Colangelo’s involvement was driven by justice or bias.