A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system

By Jonathan Turley | New York Post

Former President Donald Trump’s Manhattan “hush money” case is set to begin this week. - Mary Altaffer/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

The famous Roman philosopher and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero once said, “The more laws, the less justice.”

This week, New York judges and lawyers appear eager to prove that the same is true for cases against Donald Trump. 

After an absurd $450 million decision courtesy of Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will bring his equally controversial criminal prosecution over hush money paid to former porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

Like his predecessor, Bragg previously scoffed at the case. However, two prosecutors, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, then resigned and started a public pressure campaign to get New Yorkers to demand prosecution.

Pomerantz shocked many of us by publishing a book on the case against Trump —  who was still under investigation and not charged, let alone convicted, of any crime. He did so despite objections from his former colleague that such a book was grossly improper.

Nevertheless, it worked. Bragg brought a Rube Goldberg case that is so convoluted and counterintuitive that even liberal legal analysts criticized it.

Trump paid Daniels to avoid any publicity over their brief alleged affair. As a celebrity, there was ample reason to want to keep the affair quiet, and that does not even include the fact that he is a married man.

It also occurred before the 2016 election and there was clearly a benefit to quash the scandal as a candidate. That political motivation is at the heart of this long-delayed case.

It is a repeat of the case involving former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. In 2012, the Justice Department used the same theory to charge the former Democratic presidential candidate after a disclosure that he not only had an affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter but also hid the fact that he had a child by her. Edwards denied the affair, and money from donors was passed to Hunter to keep the matter quiet.

The Justice Department spent a huge amount on the case to show that the third-party payments were a circumvention of campaign finance laws. However, Edwards was ultimately found not guilty on one count while the jury deadlocked on the other five.

With Trump, the Justice Department declined a repeat of the Edwards debacle and did not bring any federal charge.

But Bragg then used the alleged federal crime to bootstrap a defunct misdemeanor charge into a felony in the current case. He is arguing that Trump intentionally lied when his former lawyer Michael Cohen listed the payments as retainer costs rather than a payment — to avoid reporting it as a campaign contribution to himself.

Thus, if he had simply had Cohen report the payment as “hush money,” there would be no crime.

Once again, the contrast to other controversies is telling. Before the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign denied that it had funded the infamous Steele dossier behind the debunked Russian collusion claims. 

The funding was hidden as legal expenses by then-Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias (the FEC later sanctioned the campaign over its hiding of the funding).

When a reporter tried to report the story, he said Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

Likewise, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was called before congressional investigators and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.

Yet, there were no charges stemming from the hiding of the funding, though it was all part of the campaign budget.

Making this assorted business even more repellent will be the appearance of Cohen himself on the stand. Cohen recently was denounced by a judge as a serial perjurer who is continuing to game the system.

Cohen has a long record as a legal thug who has repeatedly lied when it served his interests. He has a knack for selling his curious skill set to powerful figures like Trump and now Bragg.

For those of us who have been critics of Cohen from when he was still working for Trump, it is mystifying that anyone would call him to the stand to attest to anything short of the time of day . . . and even then most of us would check our watches.

Fortunately witnesses are no longer required to put their hand on the bible in swearing to testify truthfully in court. Otherwise, the court would need the New York Fire Department standing by in case the book burst into flames.

So this is the case: A serial perjurer used to convert a dead state misdemeanor into a felony based on an alleged federal election crime that was rejected by the Justice Department.

They could well succeed in a city where nine out of ten potential jurors despise Trump. Trying Trump in Manhattan is about as difficult as the New York Yankees going to bat using beach balls rather than baseballs. It is hard to miss.

However, this is a Pyrrhic victory for the New York legal system. Whatever the outcome, it may prove a greater indictment of the New York court system than the defendant.

NEW: Joe Biden Green-Lit Iran's Attack on Israel

By Bonchie | RedState.com

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

In a stunning yet somehow unsurprising turn of events, evidence has now emerged that Joe Biden didn't just know about Iran's attack on Israel, but that he went so far as to green-light it through back channels.

As RedState reported, Iran launched a series of drones and ballistic missiles on Saturday at the Jewish state, with almost all of them eventually being intercepted and downed. But while Israel ponders how to retaliate, a new report includes shocking information on the leadup to the attack.

There's no way to sugarcoat that. The Biden administration told the Iranians it was acceptable to attack "within certain limits." Were those limits adhered to? That's something only the president and his handlers can answer (and never will), but given their rush to demand Israel not strike back, it would seem probable that everything went according to plan. 

This is a betrayal that is hard to fathom. If an offensive attack was getting ready to be launched against the United States and one of our allies told our enemy to go ahead with the attack "within certain limits," it would be an international scandal and the end of that alliance. Yet, Israel is just expected to take this garbage from Biden and his cohorts without questioning it. 

For Israel's own sake, I hope they respond harshly to this and re-establish deterrence. Whatever Iran has on Biden and the entire Obama alumni must be incredibly serious given the lengths these people are going to protect a terrorist state. Still, that can't be allowed to dictate policy in this arena. If Iran gets away unscathed after launching this attack, it won't hesitate to launch an attack once it has secured nuclear weapons. 

That doesn't mean a full-scale war is necessary. As I explained, Iran's current offensive capabilities are limited (as are their defensive capabilities), and any retaliatory strike against their nuclear program would not lead to a "regional war." The same would be true if their drone factories were hit.

If the Biden administration wants to continue to inexcusably support and enable Iran, Israel shouldn't play along. There's too much on the line, and if the president continues down this insane path, he will lose the election in November. That would be all the better for Israel and more importantly, Americans.

Official Statement From Biden Regarding Iran Attack on Israel

By Nick Arama | RedState.com

AP Photo/Adam Bettcher

I noted earlier how there was a report that Joe Biden would be speaking after Iran began its attack on Israel. 

But quickly, that report was called back, with media like CNN saying they were "mistaken."

Translation? Even though this is the time a real leader would come out and make a strong public statement, reassuring people and/or at least keeping people informed, Biden was not doing it and indeed calling an early lid. 

But now a written statement has been issued in his name and from his X account. Chances he himself wrote this? I wouldn't bet on it. 

Biden said he condemned the attack in the "strongest possible terms" and reaffirmed "America's ironclad commitment to the security of Israel."  

Earlier today, Iran—and its proxies operating out of Yemen, Syria and Iraq—launched an unprecedented air attack against military facilities in Israel. I condemn these attacks in the strongest possible terms.  

At my direction, to support the defense of Israel, the U.S. military moved aircraft and ballistic missile defense destroyers to the region over the  course of the past week.  Thanks to these deployments and the extraordinary skill of our servicemembers, we helped Israel take down nearly all of the incoming drones and missiles.   

I’ve just spoken with Prime Minister Netanyahu to reaffirm America’s ironclad commitment to the security of Israel. I told him that Israel demonstrated a remarkable capacity to defend against and defeat even unprecedented attacks – sending a clear message to its foes that they cannot effectively threaten the security of Israel.    

Tomorrow, I will convene my fellow G7 leaders to coordinate a united diplomatic response to Iran’s brazen attack.  My team will engage with their counterparts across the region. And we will stay in close touch with Israel’s leaders. And while we have not seen attacks on our forces or facilities today, we will remain vigilant to all threats and will not hesitate to take all necessary action to protect our people.

The problem here, in addition to the question of whether he even wrote this list, is that it's his actions that have helped to lead us to this point. He's coddled Iran, released money to them, and failed to respond strongly despite them being behind dozens of militant attacks. Then, even last week, he wouldn't veto a resolution from the UN Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war. 

What happens next? Israel will likely respond. Iran has said it's over, but if Israel or the U.S. responds, they will reconsider that thought. The possibility of it spinning out of control is still out there. 

Biden has emboldened the bad actors and it's gotten out of control. He's now trying to play clean-up and display strength, but it's a bit late. 

Middle East latest: Explosions and sirens heard in Jerusalem as Iranian drones and missiles head towards Israel

Sky News

Iran has launched "pilotless aircraft" at Israel, the Israeli military has said. Delivering a televised statement, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari says Israel is "well prepared" for the attack.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE.

_________________

RELATED ARTICLES

Iran Has Begun Its Attack on Israel

Direct attack against Israel by Iran is unprecedented: This is the most dangerous moment yet for the region since the Hamas attacks of 7 October.

A SLOW-MOTION WAR

The Girl Who Hugged Trump In Atlanta Is a Treasure

BY BEEGE WELBORN | HOT AIR

AP Photo/Jason Allen

Oh, my, gosh - I just want to eat her UP.

Donald Trump walked into a Chik-Fil-A in Altlanta Wednesday to order some food (Karen said he'd been in town for a big fundraiser), and one of the most memorable campaign visits anywhere ever just exploded across the screens of the people who weren't so excited they forgot to film it.

The girls at the counter were all as giddy as 4th graders, and Trump was in his element.

_______________

POST ON "X"

Matt Wallace @MattWallace888

Donald Trump just walked into a Chick-fil-A in Atlanta and ordered 30 milkshakes! What do you notice about their reaction?

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO.

______________

There were so many people just beside themselves to be there, and it seemed every last one of them wanted to at least get close to the former president. Schmaybe even get lucky enough to touch him or catch a selfie standing alongside for posterity. It was just electric.

Everyone's reactions - from the crowd's to the obvious pleasure Trump took in the encounters - really made you smile.

One tall, striking young lady spoke up over the din to tell the president: 

"I don't care what the media tells you, Mr. Trump. We support you."

There wasn't a single, contrary word from the crowd when she said it. Oh, you know Trump had to get a hug after that, and that girl was just beside herself.

It turns out someone got her name. Michaelah Montgomery was invited to appear on Fox and Friends this morning, and all I can say is, "WOWSAHS."

She's frickin' terrific in an illuminating interview.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS VIDEO.

...The general consensus or social media would have you thinking that if President Trump were to show up to the HBCU campuses or walk around the HBCU community, that, like, some angry mob would form or a riot would ensue and that he would not be welcome. And clearly the sentiment in that room the other day was the complete opposite. He was very welcome. People were excited to see him. People showed up in support of him. And people were, of course, from all four institutions within the AEC [sic], the local HBC community in Atlanta. And they all showed up in support of him...

The Biden campaign had best be sweating bullets after getting to listen to her for a little bit more, and it seems like they already are.

The blue smear machine went into immediate overdrive because of the engaging young woman's appeal. Intrepid Google sleuths quickly found out she was a *gasp* young Republican activist who's worked for several conservative grassroots groups, including Blexit.

Yeah? So?

They're also trying to pounce with a "HAH! Not some rando black girl!" The problem is that no one ever claimed she was random. She was attending and says quite specifically that she brought her students to see the former president. If she's tied into local GOP doings, as she might well be, I can tell you from experience that the word goes out, and supporters gather. It's not a thing. Try to find a Biden-Harris gathering that isn't almost exclusively fresh-faced young things who are Democratic operatives.

Shoot, blue-side young enthusiasts even went to Youngkin rallies in khakis and shades, if you remember. Twenty-something Democratic troops are that rabidly involved.

As Ms. Montgomery's got a minimal number of contacts in all these damning gotchas this fellow thinks he's collected, I have to think her consultant dreams are just starting to take off. 70+ is nothing for any of the people I've ever worked with; even the twenty-somethings.

So, woof - that Chik-Fil-A visit must have really wigged Dems out. Ms. Montgomery has to be their worst nightmare. They're sure acting like she is.

POTATUS was already in trouble with black men - he starts losing the more reliably Democratic base they had among black women?

Biden Loses Support Among Black Men, WSJ Poll Finds

New survey of seven battleground states also shows some Black women are weighing other options

President Biden faces a dual-natured challenge to shore up his support with Black Americans, one of the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituencies.

Perhaps the most urgent: More Black men said they plan to back Donald Trump this fall, according to a recent Wall Street Journal poll of seven swing states.

While most Black men said they intend to support Biden, some 30% of them in the poll said they were either definitely or probably going to vote for the former Republican president. There isn’t comparable WSJ swing-state polling from 2020, but Trump received votes from 12% of Black men nationwide that year, as recorded by AP VoteCast, a large poll of the electorate.

In the WSJ poll, 11% of Black women said they were either definitely or probably going to vote for Trump. In 2020, the AP poll found, 6% of Black women nationwide backed Trump.

 Whoa, dawg - Katie bar the door.

If waffling black voters keep seeing viral scenes like the one in the heart of black Atlanta Wednesday and realize there are like-minded others out there who are unafraid to stand up and vote for the Republican?

During a recent segment on “Saturday Night Live,” Michael Che joked President Joe Biden, like the Baltimore bridge that collapsed, “is no longer connecting with black communities.” But for the Biden campaign, it’s not funny. In fact, the president’s low approval ratings and apparent inability to inspire enthusiasm among black voters could mean a repeat of 2016 for Democrats, if the enthusiasm gap is wide enough to outweigh Democrats’ ballot trafficking operations.

This could be pretty dang epic.

But man, oh, man - is it ever going to be dirty when Dems start fighting back.

Independent Voters: Not the Brightest Crayons in the Box

BY CHRISTOPHER SKEET | PJ MEDIA

AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Those sweet summer children we call "independent" voters are slower than molasses in January. There, I said it. I apologize for the petty insult, but I don't know how to make it sound any nicer. After the popular votes of five of the last six presidential elections, what other conclusion are we to reasonably derive?

Leftists are not stupid. Leftists are intolerant, fanatical, violent, fascistic, and single-minded in purpose. But they are not stupid. They control the media, the schools, Big Tech, much of corporate America, the IRS, the DOJ, the FBI, the Pentagon, an increasing number of religious organizations, and almost every lever of representative and bureaucratic government, not to mention our physical streets, whenever they want, with zero consequence. Whatever that is, it isn't stupidity.

Stupidity is maintaining the farce that choosing between democratic republicanism and mob tyranny is a difficult choice for rational citizens. With both parties now on polar opposite sides of the spectrum, the idea that there exists any legitimacy in carefully weighing which side to vote for no longer holds merit. 

Back in the heyday of the Republican Revolution and Clinton triangulation, one could at least feign with sincerity that there was a not insignificant amount of overlap between the two parties' agendas. Bill Clinton pretended to oppose illegal immigration and to keep abortion "safe, legal, and rare." Even during the Bush years, Democrats had the sense to mouth platitudes about "supporting the troops" and about how "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

The final break came with Obama, when he steered his party sharply left and they never looked back. Since then, the Democrats have moved so far to the left, with no signs of slowing, that the gulf that separates us has reached the point of irreconcilability. They are enabled in this pursuit by the "independent" vote, and this will continue until "independents" show some actual independence by voting for someone other than Democrats for the first time in their lives. More on that later.

There is a petty allure, rooted in virtue-signaling conceit, in trumpeting one's "independence" in politics. "Independent" voters fancy themselves the true harbingers of logical calculation and cool objectivity, able to see through the dogmatic passions of either party. They wear the undecided-until-the-last-minute mask as if they actually spent the days and hours up to the election carefully balancing each candidate and each issue against the complex, nuanced, intertwining realities of life, and that such considerations could never be fathomed by all those brutes who vote party line.

But the "independent" claim doesn't hold merit. Most "independents" are low-information leftists. Polling over the last two decades illustrates that "independents" are responsible for pushing not only presidential candidates over the finish line but also candidates in midterm elections. And yet, polling also indicates that "independents" are the least informed voters. 

Furthermore, polling finds that majorities of these "independents" skew leftward on issues of border control, taxes, race relations, drug legalization, and the economy. So the conundrum in which we find ourselves is that each election, we waste millions chasing the breeze of the fabled swing vote, which is, regrettably, the least engaged, the least informed, and which leans reliably leftward.

So calling yourself an "independent" doesn't elicit the street cred it once did. With the parties so diametrically opposed, and ferociously so, on almost every single issue, the "independent" mantle is now indicative not of courage but of cowardice, not of deliberation but of vapidity, not of intellect but of ignorance.

Let's run through the past few elections.

If you voted for Obama because you agreed that Americans should be forced to purchase insurance against their will, that government agencies should be weaponized against the citizenry, and that the United States is irredeemably racist, then you're not an "independent." You're a leftist. But if you voted for Obama because you wanted to be able to say you're hip and edgy and voted for the first black president, you're also not an "independent." You're a shallow narcissist.

If you voted for Hillary because you thought that doubling down on the Obama agenda was just the medicine America needed and that her coronation would irreversibly cement this agenda, then you're not an "independent." You're a leftist. But if you voted for Hillary because you wanted to make some juvenile Swiftie statement about Grrrl Power, you're also not an "independent." You're a shallow narcissist. 

If you voted for Biden because you knew he'd be a willing sock puppet for his radical handlers, so long as they kept massaging his ego with whispers of how smart he is, how underestimated he is, and how he can eat his steamed carrots all by himself like a big boy, then you're not an "independent." You're a leftist. But if you voted for Lunch Bucket Joe because you actually bought into his coal-miner-from-Scranton schtick and you thought he'd bring civility and bipartisanship back to the White House, you're also not an "independent." You're just straight-up gullible.

And if you're a single-issue voter and you vote Democrat solely to protect abortion, fine. We can thank you for the tanking economy, bail-free criminality, the destruction of women's sports, Chinese/Russian/Iranian aggression, the crackdown on due process, the laughingstock of our public education, the resurgence of antisemitism and Islamic supremacy, and the millions of illegal invaders currently overrunning our cities. Hope it was worth it to ensure that partial-birth abortion remains taxpayer-funded and available to undocumented teens without parental notification in Nebraska. 

So how are "independent" voters made to see reason? Our middle/upper-class suburbanite "independents" maintain their faux independence by turning a blind eye to the policies they support. They are not directly affected by the factory closures, the armies of illegals, the FBI raids on peaceful pro-lifers, or by some baker getting sued out of business by LGBTQ cancelers. But maybe they'll raise an eyebrow once their leafy streets are overrun by the beneficiaries of their vote. 

The well-devised practice of busing illegals to blue cities should be expanded to include blue suburbs. Criminals released on no-bail laws should likewise be released into these neighborhoods. Anybody looking to join a police force should do so only in reliably red areas. Republican district attorneys should prioritize prosecutions in red districts. Businesses should continue relocating to red areas.

Our suburban "independent" voters need their votes to follow them. Once they see their streets being overrun, their stores looted and burned, their schools turned into refugee camps, and their property taxes paying for it all, maybe they'll take a good, hard look in the mirror, admit they were wrong, and change their vote.

For at least one or two elections, anyway.

Want to Guess What the Media Missed Regarding This Officer-Involved Shooting in Chicago?

By Matt Vespa | Townhall.com

AP Photo/Matt Rourke

The dishonesty from the media continues to sink to absurd levels. On March 21, Dexter Reed was shot and killed by Chicago police after he fired on officers. It’s all on video. Reed fired first, which led to police returning fire. One officer was shot and injured by Reed. The media either obsesses about the 96 fired shots or buries the crucial detail that Reed fired first. The incident was a routine traffic stop, where Reed was pulled over for reportedly not wearing a seatbelt. Credit to NBC 5 Chicago, who had an accurate headline for this story: “Police fire nearly 100 shots in 41 seconds after man shot officer during traffic stop.” 

As the group stopped Reed, multiple officers surrounded his vehicle and, according to several bodycam videos, asked him to roll his windows down repeatedly. Officers then shouted at Reed not to roll the windows up and to unlock his doors. 

As they shout, Reed can be heard saying "OK, I'm trying to," with officers continuing to pull on the door handle and shouting for him to unlock the doors, some backing away and raising their firearms. 

In the videos, gunfire is heard as officers then take cover and several gunshots are fired in a matter of seconds. One officer falls away from the scene, with video showing blood dripping from his arm. 

"When Mr. Reed did not comply with these commands, officers pointed their firearms at Mr. Reed and ultimately there was an exchange of gunfire which left Mr. Reed dead and an officer shot in the forearm," COPA said in a release. 

According to COPA, the "review of video footage and initial reports appears to confirm that Mr. Reed fired first, striking the officer and four officers returned fire." 

Yet, what we’ve got from a host of people, some of whom are the usual suspects in ginning up false narratives, is that the police murdered Mr. Reed. Some have wondered whether the media is trying to create another George Floyd situation for this election season. The evidence is clear: Reed shot first and paid for it. The officer who was shot is expected to make a full recovery.  

I don’t want to hear about what a great kid he was—Reed was a wannabe cop killer, and now he’s six feet under where he belongs.