The United States Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling that could reshape the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary.
According to the Washington Examiner, the ruling might overturn the Chevron doctrine, a precedent that allows federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes, affecting President Biden's regulatory agenda.
The Chevron doctrine, in place since the 1980s, mandates that courts defer to federal agencies to interpret unclear laws, provided the interpretation is reasonable. This principle has been a cornerstone of administrative law, supporting various regulatory actions by federal agencies.
Business and industry groups have long criticized Chevron, arguing that it empowers agencies to enforce burdensome regulations. Major players like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and the North American Meat Institute are among the opponents, suggesting that the doctrine has led to excessive control by executive agencies.
In contrast, the federal government defends Chevron, emphasizing that it upholds the authority of Congress and the courts. This precedent, they argue, ensures that subject matter experts within agencies handle complex regulatory issues rather than judges who may lack specific expertise.
The upcoming decision stems from two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases challenge a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) rule requiring commercial fishermen to finance at-sea monitors, presenting an opportunity to reconsider Chevron.
Several justices expressed doubts about affirming Chevron during January's oral arguments. Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that relying on Chevron disadvantages groups like immigrants and Social Security Disability applicants who can't influence agency actions.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised constitutional concerns, suggesting Chevron allows new administrations to repeatedly redefine laws, creating regulatory instability. Chief Justice John Roberts noted a trend in recent decisions that seem to minimize Chevron's influence, indicating the Court may be moving away from it.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defended Chevron, arguing that agencies populated with experts are more apt to interpret ambiguous laws. Prelogar warned that overturning Chevron could result in an "unwarranted shock to the legal system," with many litigants emerging to challenge established regulations.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson warned against discarding Chevron due to its importance in allowing Congress to address future challenges like AI. They cautioned that removing Chevron would make courts "uber legislators." Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s stance is pivotal and is closely watched by supporters and critics.
Conservative interest groups contend that the Chevron doctrine unfairly favors agency experts, potentially skewing interpretations against challengers. Legal analyst Cary Burke suggests that a Supreme Court decision to revise Chevron could alter its application, either by changing how statutory ambiguity is assessed or limiting its use to cases where Congress has clearly delegated legislative powers to an agency.
As the Supreme Court ruling approaches, its implications for administrative law and federal agency powers hang in the balance. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s warning about the potential "shock to the legal system" underscores the high stakes involved in this landmark decision.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s critique signals an intent to recalibrate the power distribution between the judiciary and executive agencies. The Court’s decision, expected before the end of June, could significantly reshape the regulatory landscape and redefine the interplay between different branches of government.
Nearly 62% of Americans support the expulsion of all undocumented migrants, reflecting dissatisfaction with the current immigration system.
According to Mediaite, Margaret Brennan, moderator of CBS Face the Nation, discussed the poll findings in a dialogue with Anthony Salvanto, the head of CBS News polling.
Brennan questioned what this majority sentiment truly represents and the feasibility of such actions. She contended that certain legislative measures, particularly those introduced by former President Donald Trump, face significant logistical and legal issues.
One striking figure shared by Brennan is that President Joe Biden has deported more individuals in the past year than in any year since 2010. This statistic from the Department of Homeland Security points to a significant increase in deportations under the current administration compared to the past decade.
Brennan elaborated on the practical challenges of implementing wide-scale deportation policies. She emphasized the dilemma of rounding up families and minors and how such actions might contend with legal and resource limitations. These concerns underscore the complexities faced by law enforcement and local governments.
“It doesn’t seem practical, in some sense, to round up children,” Brennan noted, referencing the limitations on federal and local authorities. She questioned whether this public support was fully aligned with the practical aspects and legal challenges of such policies.
Salvanto provided additional context on the public sentiment captured in the polls. He stressed that polls often reflect broad public mood rather than specific policy endorsements. He suggested that the overwhelming support indicated a general frustration with the current immigration system’s efficacy.
Salvanto explained, “We are in a different era in which a lot of folks say the system as a whole is not working.” This dissatisfaction transcends individual policies and reflects a collective desire for action, regardless of the technicalities involved.
Contributing to this sentiment is the perception of a broken immigration system, signaling a populace eager for definitive change. The exact interpretation of what deporting all undocumented migrants entails remains somewhat unclear among the majority who support it.
Brennan highlighted that implementing such wide-scale deportations would not be straightforward. The full implications must be understood by examining the legal, logistical, and humanitarian aspects closely.
The significant support for deporting all undocumented migrants raises critical questions about the practicality of such an endeavor. Despite President Biden’s administration's increasing deportations, public satisfaction remains elusive.
Brennan noted that federal authorities may lack the resources for such measures, and local attempts might face legal and logistical challenges. Salvanto suggested that public support might reflect broader disillusionment with the system rather than a specific call to action, complicating policymakers' tasks.
The latest CBS poll reveals a polarized and frustrated public sentiment regarding the nation’s immigration policies. Although the Biden administration has increased deportations, there is widespread support for even stricter measures. As policymakers navigate these challenges, the discussion on addressing the root causes and public dissatisfaction with the current system persists.
Former President Donald Trump has revealed the emotional toll his 34 felony convictions have taken on his family, particularly his youngest son, Barron, during a recent conversation with Dr. Phil.
Despite legal struggles, Trump's campaign for the 2024 presidential race continues to attract substantial financial support, despite the personal and emotional costs to his family, as Conservative Brief reports.
Trump, convicted of dozens of felony counts related to a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election, shared an update on his family's coping mechanism in a podcast interview on Thursday. Speaking with Dr. Phil McGraw, he offered a glimpse into the challenges faced by his son amid the turmoil.
During the interview, Trump described Barron as resilient, detailing his achievements, including recent college acceptances. "It's not easy," he remarked, acknowledging the difficult circumstances. He further praised Barron as a great student and a "good boy," despite the additional stress brought about by campus unrest in response to his father's legal issues.
He expressed concern for his son's well-being, noting that Barron often refrains from discussing his feelings to avoid causing additional distress. "He doesn't say it, and I think he doesn't say it because he doesn't want to hurt me," Trump shared. The former president emphasized the unfairness of the allegations, explaining how they deeply affect his family members, whom he described as inherently good and supportive despite the adversities.
Trump also highlighted the emotional challenges faced by his wife, Melania Trump. He mentioned she is managing the situation but finding it tougher than expected. In a separate interview with Fox News, Trump gave insight into her emotional state, describing her as "fine" but noting the situation is "very hard for her."
He reiterated that the strain on his family is significant and more challenging to cope with than if the situation affected only him. "It's tougher on my family than it is on me," he asserted. Despite these hurdles, Trump announced plans to appeal the verdict in New York's appellate court, though he remains skeptical due to the judges' partisan affiliations.
Legal issues have seemingly had little impact on Trump's political campaign's performance. His polling numbers remain robust, and his 2024 fundraising efforts continue to thrive, often outperforming those of President Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee.
After the guilty verdict, Trump's campaign website experienced a surge in traffic and donations, raising an astonishing $54.8 million within 24 hours. His campaign's monthly total reached approximately $141 million, reflecting strong support from his base.
GOP strategist Mark R. Weaver commented on the unexpected nature of these developments, stating that Democrats failed to anticipate the positive effect the prosecutions would have on Trump's fundraising capabilities. "They didn't realize that the liquid they were throwing on the fire was not water, but gasoline," he noted.
Trump's determination to weather the storm is evident both legally and politically. His continuing success in amassing campaign contributions underscores his unyielding influence in the GOP and his ability to galvanize a dedicated supporter base, despite judicial setbacks.
The narrative proceeds with Trump maintaining his innocence, dismissing the charges as "fake" allegations while navigating the complex emotional landscape with his family and securing unwavering political support from his followers.
Ultimately, the story paints a picture of a resilient family, a steadfast campaign, and the intricate balance of personal and political life amidst legal controversies. Trump's unwavering dedication to his political ambitions and his family's well-being remains a focal point, capturing national attention as the 2024 election looms closer.
Arizona Democrat Gov. Katie Hobbs is under fire for alleged involvement in a pay-to-play scheme.
Hobbs, a known supporter of President Joe Biden, stands accused of accepting substantial donations from Sunshine Residential Homes in exchange for favorable rate increases, as the Arizona Republic reports.
Arizona has been placing fewer children in group homes in recent years, a context underscored by a recent decision in February 2023 by the Department of Child Safety (DCS). DCS officials denied a 20% rate increase to the state's largest group home network. However, only three days later, Sunshine Residential Homes contributed $100,000 to a "dark money" network linked to Hobbs.
Subsequently, three months after the significant donation, Sunshine Residential Homes experienced a favorable adjustment, receiving a 30% rate increase. This situation has raised eyebrows and fueled suspicions of a quid pro quo arrangement. Critics have been vocal, questioning the link between the donation and the substantial rate hike.
Notably, within the past year, the Department of Child Safety has approved an almost 60% rate increase in the amount Sunshine Residential Homes charges to care for a child for a day. This has occurred while no other standard group home provider has received any rate increase during Governor Hobbs' tenure. Such disparities have not gone unnoticed and are causing significant concern.
The approval of these rate hikes has left many questioning the Department of Child Safety’s decisions and potential biases. The consistency and timing of donations followed by favorable adjustments are alarming to many observer institutions. The Arizona Republic, a leading news outlet, has called for an investigation by either Attorney General Kris Mayes or the Arizona legislature to probe into potential official corruption.
Further raising suspicions are donations from a state contractor that amount to $400,000 to Hobbs and Arizona Democrats. In return, this contractor reportedly received millions more in state money, reinforcing concerns about potential pay-to-play practices within the state's administration. The timing of these donations and subsequent financial benefits has not gone unnoticed by watchdog groups.
Questions surrounding Hobbs’ involvement in certifying her own election as the former Arizona Secretary of State have added to the controversy. This certification transpired under chaotic conditions in Maricopa County on Election Day. Critics argue that such actions contribute to a broader narrative of transparency and integrity issues within Hobbs' administration.
Equally intriguing is the slim margin by which Kris Mayes won her Attorney General position, with a lead of just 280 votes. This statistically improbable victory has only intensified calls for thorough investigations into the matter. Observers and political analysts suggest that these events are deeply intertwined and warrant comprehensive scrutiny.
Public sentiment reflects growing dissatisfaction and demand for accountability. "Clearly, it pays to toss money Gov. Hobbs’ way," remarked a critic, highlighting the perceived direct benefits of financial contributions to the governor. Such statements underscore the urgency in addressing these allegations and the perceived erosion of trust in state governance.
The repercussions of these allegations could be far-reaching. Lawmakers and concerned citizens alike are pushing for a resolution that ensures transparency and ethical governance. Without a thorough investigation, public confidence in the administration's integrity might be irreparably damaged.
Given the gravity of the accusations leveled against Hobbs, it is imperative that any investigations be conducted with utmost transparency and impartiality. As these inquiries unfold, Arizona's residents look to their leaders for accountability and justice. The outcomes could shape the state's political landscape for years to come.
In conclusion, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs faces serious allegations connecting substantial donations from Sunshine Residential Homes to favorable rate increases. The interplay between financial contributions and administrative decisions underlines the need for a rigorous investigation.
The Georgia appellate court has ordered a pause in the election subversion case against former President Donald Trump.
The court will decide if Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified due to a potential conflict of interest.
According to the Washington Times, the pause delays any significant action on the case until after the November election and possibly until next year. The delay was issued Wednesday and affects multiple defendants, including Trump, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Defense attorneys claim DA Fani Willis has a financial conflict of interest. They allege a romantic relationship between Willis and Nathan Wade, who was hired to lead the investigation against Trump and his associates.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee previously ruled that Willis could remain on the case if Wade resigned from his role. Wade complied and resigned, but Trump's legal team appealed the decision.
The appeals court is now tasked with determining the validity of these allegations. This decision will significantly impact the future of the case against Trump and his allies.
The indictment alleges Trump and his associates violated racketeering laws in their attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. Trump’s defense lawyers are actively working to dismiss these charges.
This delay means the court cannot proceed with the case in the interim. Wednesday’s ruling explicitly states, “The proceedings below in the Superior Court of Fulton County are hereby stayed pending the outcome of these appeals.”
This case is among several legal battles Trump currently faces. Special counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump in another case in Florida related to unlawfully storing government records at Mar-a-Lago.
Furthermore, Trump will face the U.S. Supreme Court regarding presidential immunity claims in a different case. In this case, Trump is accused of conspiring against voters.
Amid these legal battles, Trump, as a convicted felon, was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges are connected to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.
Sentencing for these charges is scheduled to take place on July 11 in Manhattan. This ongoing cascade of legal issues illustrates the broader context of Trump's legal challenges.
The appellate court is expected to make a ruling in the fall, potentially by the end of the year. Until then, significant actions on the case against Trump and his alleged co-conspirators are on hold. This pause has political ramifications, as it delays any developments until after the November elections. The prolonged timeline could influence the political landscape in the coming months.
A juror in a prominent pandemic fraud trial has been approached with a $120,000 bribe to influence the acquittal of seven defendants. These individuals are accused of misappropriating $40 million allocated to feed underprivileged children during the pandemic.
According to PJ Media, the seven defendants are part of a broader federal inquiry implicating 70 people in the theft of more than $250 million in pandemic relief.
This sweeping investigation has unveiled a series of elaborate schemes employed by non-profits like Feeding Our Future and Partners in Nutrition, which significantly expanded during the pandemic.
The defendants are charged with fabricating invoices for food never served, establishing sham companies, money laundering, passport fraud, and accepting under-the-table payments. Authorities report that most of the $40 million was diverted for personal luxuries instead of being used to feed children.
A mysterious woman delivered the bribe to the juror, aware of the juror’s first name, knowledge that should have been confidential. “This is completely beyond the pale,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson declared. “This is something you expect from mafia movies, not a federal courtroom.”
Further investigation into the entities involved revealed a pattern of fraudulent activity. Licensed charities like Feeding Our Future saw an exponential increase in funding during the pandemic, which in turn increased corruption.
According to prosecutors, only a fraction of the $40 million from pandemic relief funds was used for its intended purpose. The remainder was used to purchase luxurious items such as high-end vehicles, expensive jewelry, and opulent real estate. These revelations emerged as the trial progressed, prompting further scrutiny.
“This kind of behavior is outrageous,” Thompson emphasized, reflecting a sentiment shared both within the courtroom and by the general public.
Details revealed during the trial show a web of fraud and corruption. The defendants allegedly forged documents and created fake organizations to funnel federal relief money into their personal accounts. Investigations exposed how they exploited the pandemic for financial gain.
Organizations like Feeding Our Future, established to manage meals for needy children, became central to the investigation. These non-profits expanded significantly during the pandemic, providing more opportunities for fraud.
This case is part of a larger federal effort to hold accountable those misappropriating pandemic relief. More than 60 defendants still await trial, each presumed innocent until proven guilty. The magnitude and audacity of these schemes have elicited significant public and legal responses.
In summary, a juror received a $120,000 bribe offer to acquit seven defendants involved in a $40 million pandemic fraud case. These defendants are part of a federal probe involving 70 individuals charged with embezzling over $250 million in relief funds.
Non-profits like Feeding Our Future and Partners in Nutrition were central to the fraudulent schemes, which included submitting fake invoices, forming shell companies, and laundering money. The funds were primarily spent on luxuries rather than feeding children.
Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS) has introduced a bill to strip Secret Service protections from former President Donald Trump and other protectees convicted of felonies.
According to The Post Millenial, a prominent left-wing representative, Thompson has named the legislation the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act.” The bill seeks to amend US Code Section 3056(a) of Title 18, removing Secret Service protection for any protectee sentenced for a federal or state offense punishable by at least one year of imprisonment.
The introduction of HR 8081 has sparked considerable debate. Eight other Democrat representatives have co-sponsored the bill: Troy Carter (D-LA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Bonnie Coleman (D-NJ), Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), Joyce Beatty (D-OH), and Steve Cohen (D-TN). The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. However, due to the Republican leadership within the committee, it is expected to face significant hurdles.
Thompson's motivation for introducing the bill stems from the recent legal proceedings involving former President Trump. He expressed a strong stance on the matter, stating:
Today’s verdict confirms what we have always known: Donald Trump is a criminal who thinks nothing of breaking the law, or our Constitution, to get what he wants. No one, especially an ex-President, is above the law.
HR 8081 is designed to apply broadly, potentially affecting any Secret Service protectee convicted of a felony. Thompson emphasized this point, noting, “This measure would apply to former President Trump. It also would apply to all Secret Service protectees convicted and sentenced under felony charges.”
The bill's provisions aim to hold all individuals receiving Secret Service protection accountable under the law, ensuring that those convicted of serious offenses do not continue to benefit from taxpayer-funded security details.
While the bill has garnered support from several Democrat representatives, it has also sparked some mixed reactions within the party. Democrat Rep. Dean Phillips has suggested an alternative approach, calling for former President Trump to be pardoned by New York Governor Kathy Hochul.
Phillips’ stance highlights the divisions within the Democratic Party regarding the appropriate response to Trump's legal troubles. Some see the conviction as a justified outcome of a fair legal process, while others view it as potentially excessive and politically motivated.
Despite these differing perspectives, the bill's sponsors remain committed to advancing HR 8081 through the legislative process. They argue that it is necessary to uphold the Secret Service's integrity and ensure that convicted felons do not receive undue protection.
The introduction of HR 8081 has also prompted discussions about its broader implications. Thompson has argued that the bill is not solely targeted at Trump but would apply to any protectee convicted of serious crimes, including potentially controversial figures such as Hunter Biden, if he were to be convicted of felony charges.
This broad applicability underscores the bill's intention to address a perceived gap in current protections afforded to high-profile individuals, regardless of their political affiliations or past positions.
As the debate over HR 8081 continues, whether the bill will gain enough traction to advance through the House Judiciary Committee remains to be seen. The Republican leadership’s control of the committee poses a significant challenge to its progression.
In summary, Representative Bennie Thompson has introduced a bill aimed at revoking Secret Service protections for convicted felons, including former President Donald Trump. The bill, supported by eight other Democrat representatives, faces an uphill battle in the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee. It seeks to ensure that those convicted of serious offenses do not benefit from taxpayer-funded security amidst a backdrop of mixed reactions and political implications.
The Supreme Court will review an appeal from Salvatore “Fat Sal” Delligatti, a Genovese crime family associate, challenging a 2018 gun charge conviction.
According to CNN, Delligatti contends that his underlying offense does not meet the criteria for a "crime of violence," impacting how enhanced sentences are applied.
The nation's highest court agreed on Monday to hear Delligatti's case. He disputes a conviction on a weapon charge from 2018 that extended his imprisonment by five years. Besides the gun charge, Delligatti was also found guilty of attempted murder and additional crimes.
Delligatti orchestrated a murder plot targeting a local individual described as a “bully.” According to the case, this person had been troubling a gas station. In pursuing this plan, Delligatti enlisted members of the Crips gang through an intermediary.
The gang members were equipped with a .38 revolver provided by Delligatti. However, law enforcement foiled the plan by intercepting the hired assassins before they could execute the killing. Delligatti received a 25-year sentence, with five of those years attributed to the gun charge under a federal statute.
The federal law in question bans firearm possession during a “crime of violence.” Delligatti maintains that his underlying offense doesn't meet this statutory definition. The debate around what constitutes a "crime of violence" has led to differing opinions within federal appeals courts.
Despite opposing Delligatti’s claim, the Justice Department agrees that the Supreme Court's examination of the appeal is warranted. Recently, the court has narrowed the circumstances where enhanced penalties can be pursued for a “crime of violence.”
Delligatti cites a two-year-old Supreme Court decision to bolster his argument. In that case, a 7-2 majority ruled in favor of a Virginia defendant also convicted on a weapons charge during an attempted robbery. This precedent could play a pivotal role in the upcoming review.
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals previously upheld Delligatti’s conviction, affirming the enhanced sentence on his gun charge. The Supreme Court’s willingness to hear the appeal indicates that there may be substantial questions about the interpretation of legal definitions affecting enhanced sentences.
The outcome of this case holds significant implications for federal sentencing laws. If Delligatti’s appeal is successful, it could restrict the application of enhanced penalties in cases where the underlying crime is questioned as a “crime of violence.”
Federal appeals courts have not uniformly interpreted what constitutes a "crime of violence," which has led to inconsistent sentences across jurisdictions. The Supreme Court’s decision could create a uniform standard, impacting countless future cases.
The Supreme Court will review Salvatore "Fat Sal" Delligatti's appeal challenging his 2018 gun charge conviction. Delligatti argues that his underlying offense does not qualify as a "crime of violence," affecting enhanced sentencing applications.
Given the divided opinions among lower courts, the court's decision could redefine legal boundaries for such enhancements. This case could set a new standard for federal sentencing laws.
In a case that has garnered national attention, Hunter Biden will face trial on Monday in Wilmington, Delaware. The trial centers on charges related to purchasing and possessing a firearm while addicted to drugs and could result in a prison sentence of up to 25 years.
According to The Telegraph, Hunter Biden's admission of smoking crack "every 15 minutes" around the time he purchased a firearm is expected to be a key point in his upcoming firearms trial.
This trial is the first instance of a sitting U.S. president's child being taken to court amid numerous legal challenges affecting his father's reelection campaign.
The charges against Hunter Biden involve three counts of possessing a firearm while being addicted to drugs, a federal crime that can lead to severe penalties if he is found guilty. Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which pertain to his purchase of a .38-caliber Colt Cobra revolver in 2018. The allegations state he made false statements on federal paperwork about his drug use during the gun purchase.
According to evidence set to be presented during the trial, including pictures and text messages, Hunter Biden reportedly used drugs regularly at the time he acquired the firearm. Hunter’s 2021 memoir Beautiful Things details his struggle with drug addiction, supporting the prosecution's case.
The defining moment in this trial will be whether the jury accepts the prosecution's evidence of Hunter Biden’s drug use and whether he views himself as an addict. His defense team seeks precise definitions of "addict" and "user" and instructions to acquit if these definitions are not met.
President Joe Biden has stated that "no one is above the law," a stance he reiterated following former President Donald Trump’s recent conviction on falsifying business records. Republicans are expected to leverage details from Hunter Biden’s trial to distract from Trump's conviction.
Christopher Galdieri, a political analyst, said:
I think the Republicans are hoping that this can distract... but I don’t know that that’s going to compete with Trump’s felony conviction when Trump is the one who is actually a candidate.
Hunter Biden's trial is anticipated to have an impact on the first presidential debate this month. Trump might use it as a tactic to provoke President Biden, emphasizing a narrative of legal troubles within the Biden family.
Among the key witnesses is Hallie Biden, the widow of Hunter’s deceased brother, Beau Biden, who had a romantic relationship with Hunter. Her testimony is expected to provide crucial insights into Hunter's actions and state of mind during the period in question. Hallie's input will likely be pivotal to the prosecution's case.
Furthermore, the defense will aim to scrutinize the prosecution’s evidence, including Hunter’s own admissions in his memoir and the presented text messages. The stakes are high, as a conviction could result in Hunter Biden spending an extensive period in prison.
This trial in Wilmington is not Hunter Biden’s only legal woe. He also faces separate tax evasion charges pending in California, scheduled for later this year. These additional charges add another layer of complexity to his legal battles and draw significant public and media attention.
Hunter Biden is on trial in Wilmington, Delaware, facing charges of purchasing and possessing a firearm while addicted to drugs, which could lead to a 25-year prison sentence. His frequent drug use around the time of buying a .38-caliber Colt Cobra revolver in 2018 is a crucial element of the prosecution's case. This trial, marking a rare court appearance by a sitting U.S. president's child during an election campaign, involves evidence from Hunter's memoir, text messages, and testimony from Hallie Biden, adding complexity to President Biden's re-election efforts.
Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has fired back at Democrats, accusing them of using a political strategy that she says is doomed to fail.
Leavitt, the national press secretary for the Trump campaign, criticized the Democrats' strategy of labeling former President Donald Trump a "convicted felon" following his guilty verdict on all 34 counts in his business records trial, asserting that this strategy will not deter voters come November, as Breitbart reports.
Appearing on Breitbart News Saturday, Leavitt accused the Democrats of attempting to dissuade voters by gloating over and publicizing Trump's recent conviction. She was clear in her belief that this tactic would be vehemently rejected by the American electorate.
"This was a part of the Democrats’ political strategy to bring this case forward. And anyone who doesn’t see that is blind. I mean, that is exactly what they want to do, Matt, to call President Trump a convicted felon," said Leavitt.
Leavitt stressed her prediction that Americans would consistently hear the term "convicted felon" used against Trump until November’s Election Day. She remains convinced that rather than dissuading voters, the tactic would expose the Democrats' desperation. "Americans are going to hear them use that phrase a billion times between now and Election Day in November," she predicted.
Leavitt's comments reflect a broader strategy by the Trump campaign to counteract what they see as politically motivated prosecutions. The campaign continues to argue that these attempts are futile against Trump’s solid voter base.
Leavitt did not limit her criticism to the Democrats' legal strategies. She contended that President Joe Biden had failed to remedy significant national issues such as inflation, the border crisis, and the conflict in Israel and Gaza.
"Because this conviction does not make Joe Biden any stronger. It does not make Joe Biden any more competent. It doesn’t fix inflation. It doesn’t fix the border crisis that is wreaking havoc in every American community across this country. It’s not going to stop the war in Israel, in Gaza," she detailed.
Leavitt suggested that Americans are more concerned with economic and security issues than with ongoing legal battles. She accused President Biden of diverting attention from these pressing problems by focusing on the prosecution of Trump.
Leavitt claimed that the justice system is compromised and weaponized against Trump. She asserted that this perception is shared by many Americans who view the trial as unfair.
"And they don’t realize that and you know what? Let them talk stupid until Election Day. Let them deny the reality of the problems that Americans are facing in this country, because President Trump is out there talking about those problems every single day and offering solutions and exposing the truth about our corrupt weaponized system of justice," she continued.
Leavitt emphasized her belief that Americans recognize the trial's bias and that it fuels support for Trump rather than diminishes it. She concluded that the public would see through the alleged political ploy by the Democrats. In her closing remarks, Leavitt reiterated her stance on the trial’s fairness. "And this trial was totally unfair, and they see that," she declared.
Karoline Leavitt’s vehement response encapsulates the Trump campaign’s position on the recent conviction and its overall strategy to highlight national issues as the 2024 election approaches.