Breaking: Menendez Guilty on All Counts; Schumer Calls for Resignation

Secret Service--The Story Gets MUCH Worse

After many hours of covering the Trump-shooting story, CNN is reverting to questioning Donald Trump (and now J.D. Vance) as sympathizers of Vladimir Putin. On Tuesday morning, anchor Kate Bolduan pressed House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) on Ukraine, starting with a reflexive defense of Biden. Silicon Valley investor David Sacks made pointed remarks regarding Biden’s place in the Ukraine war on Monday night: He provoked, yes provoked the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion, President Biden sold us this new forever war by promising it would weaken Russia and strengthen America. Well, how does that look today? Russia's military is bigger than before. While our own stockpiles are dangerously depleted. Bolduan reacted to these comments, defending Biden and questioning a Trump-Vance change in policy: Now real quick, any observer of, you know, Russian aggression in Ukraine over the past ten years know that it wasn't, this, wasn't provoked by Joe Biden…. J.D. Vance is one of the parties, especially in Congress, most vocal critics of US support for Ukraine. Looking forward, if former Trump wins again is future support for Ukraine in serious question?     That’s a legitimate question, but the host could not go without defending Biden’s administration and insinuating a dark future. Emmer fought back: EMMER: Actually, I’d back it up just a little bit. First off, I might not have chosen the word provoked, but the Biden administration and Joe Biden's feckless, aimless “I don't want to provoke anything policy,” that sign of weakness, just opened the door for Putin to say, “We're going.” There's something really important – BOLDUAN: Putin invaded – Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014. I mean, you know… EMMER:  Well, I understand that, but I'm talking about most recently this is what caused it is you had – BOLDUAN: Just saying the aggression has been around. It’s mysterious that the CNN host thought it was a defense to say Ukraine was last invaded when Obama was president. It became clear that the objective of Bolduan was to negate any truth in the Sacks critique of Biden’s foreign policy on Ukraine. Yet Emmer retorted (click expand): EMMER: Another thing that Sacks said that was very important is the depletion of our weapons stockpile here in the United States, the vast majority of the money we've been talking about has been restocking and rebuilding American military capabilities, which is really important at this point in time. That's going to get done. President Trump has already said that on day one, this is the issue that he's going to address and resolve. And I believe it. BOLDUAN: What is the issue? EMMER: Ukraine! And the conflict with Russia? He said, “On day one, I will go after this and I'll solve it.” BOLDUAN: And you, even if it's making – supporting some Russian proposed ceasefire deal? EMMER: I don't think you should assume anything like that, Kate. I think President Trump understands exactly what he needs to do. And before we all start trying to prejudge something that we don't know the details of where he's going to go with it you got to be open. He has been correct about this stuff and I think most Americans recognize that now, when they take the personality out of it, I think he'll do exactly what he's telling us he's going to do. As the Liberal Media dances around direct jabs at the President, moments like this highlight the true intentions and agenda of a biased network, and a disregard for the former President. The transcript is below, click “expand” to read:   CNN News Central 7/16/2024 8:36:25 AM EST   KATE BOLDUAN: One policy question I want to ask you about. You've been a supporter of helping Ukraine in its war against Russian invasion and Russian aggression. Foreign policy became something of a focus last night, even though it was more of an economic message, but it became some of focus last night on stage, especially when we heard this speech from David Sacks is a Silicon Valley investor who was given prime speaking slot and he really went after Joe Biden in his policy and aid for Ukraine. Let me play this really quickly. DAVID SACKS: Then he provoked, yes provoked the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion, President Biden sold us this new forever war by promising it would weaken Russia and strengthen America. Well, how does that look today? Russia's military is bigger than before. While our own stockpiles are dangerously dipleaded. BOLDUAN: Now real quick, any observer of, you know, Russian aggression in Ukraine over the past ten years know that it wasn't, this, wasn't provoked by Joe Biden. But in the broader point, we also know, add to that, JD Vance is one of the parties, especially in congress, most vocal critics of US support for Ukraine. Looking forward, if former Trump wins again is future support for Ukraine in serious question?  TOM EMMER (R-MN): Actually, I’d back it up just a little bit. First off, I might not have chosen the word provoked, but the Biden administration and Joe Biden's feckless, aimless “I don't want to provoke anything policy,” that sign of weakness, just opened the door for Putin to say, “We're going.” There's something really important –  BOLDUAN: Putin invaded – Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014. I mean, you know… EMMER:  Well, I understand that, but I'm talking about most recently this is what caused it is you had – BOLDUAN: Just saying the aggression has been around.   EMMER: – Republicans were saying as early as Thanksgiving before that broke out, at the beginning of the new year. They were saying we need to send defensive weapons and the response from the Biden administration was, “We can't do that. That would be provocation.” That could be well, that's ultimately when you're not going to do that.  BOLDUAN: But talk to me about the sending defensive weapons to talk to me about the support going forward.  EMMER: Well, so another thing that Sacks said that was very important is the depletion of our weapons stockpile here in the United States, the vast majority of the money we've been talking about has been restocking and rebuilding American military capabilities, which is really important at this point in time. That's going to get done. President Trump has already said that on day one, this is the issue that he's going to address and resolve. And I believe it. BOLDUAN: What is the issue?  EMMER: Ukraine! And the conflict with Russia? He said, “On day one, I will go after this and I'll solve it.” BOLDUAN: And you, even if it's making – supporting some Russian proposed ceasefire deal? EMMER: I don't think you should assume anything like that, Kate. I think President Trump understand….s exactly what he needs to do. And before we all start trying to prejudge something that we don't know the details of where he's going to go with it you got to be open. He has been correct about this stuff and I think most Americans recognize that now, when they take the personality out of it, I think he'll do exactly what he's telling us he's going to do. BOLDUAN: All right. Good to see you.  EMMER: Good to see you, Kate. BOLDUAN: Thanks for coming.  

While delegates were being counted on Monday during the Republican National Convention, MSNBC sent Jacob Soboroff to the floor to interview Donald Trump Jr. about what his father’s second term would look during Katy Tur Reports. The pair battled over whether Trump was “divisive” before Trump Jr. ultimately told Soboroff to “get out of here” as he spread some fake news over immigration. Soboroff wondered, “What is that change going to look like, Don? What, practically, your father as president, I think you would even say was a divisive figure, what's it going to look like in a second term?”     Democracy is about arguments, debates, and disagreements. Every politician is divisive to some extent, including President Joe Biden. What makes democracy worth defending is that we can debate our differences like adults without shooting each other, which is why what happened on Saturday with the attempt on Donald Trump’s life is not just an attack on him, but on democracy. As for Trump Jr., he replied, “I don't think he was a divisive figure at all. I think the media created divisiveness around him. They lied about Russia-Russia collusion, they said he was a traitor, they went after him in every which way as possible. If the media actually starts being an honest broker, talking about the things he did, the prosperity he brought, the peace deals that he signed around the world, rather than the disaster we're living right now, I think you'd do everyone in the country a big favor.” Moving on, Soboroff asked, “I know immigration is important to him. I covered the family separation crisis closely, will we continue to see policies like separating 5,000 children deliberately from their parents?” That set up the following exchange between the two men: TRUMP JR.: You mean the Obama Administration. SOBOROFF: You know they didn't do that, sir. TRUMP JR.: Sure. SOBOROFF: Will there be a second family separation policy? TRUMP JR.: It’s MSDNC, so I expect nothing less from you clowns, even today, even 48 hours later, you couldn't wait. You couldn't wait with your lies and with your nonsense, so just get out of here. Trump Jr. is correct, as MSNBC itself noted in 2018. Furthermore, immigration is not just important to Trump, it is important to Soboroff. He’s a key figure in a current defamation lawsuit against MSNBC for alleging Dr. Mahendra Amin performed unnecessary hysterectomies on female migrants. He’s attacked Democrats from the left on the issue of border security, he wrote a book lamenting Trump’s immigration policies, whom he accused of “torturing human beings” on multiple occasions. He also claimed Trump was attempting to “terrorize millions of people” by being “xenophobic.” Here is the transcript for the July 15 show: MSNBC Katy Tur Reports 7/15/2024 3:18 PM ET JACOB SOBOROFF: What is that change going to look like, Don? What, practically, your father as president, I think you would even say was a divisive figure, what's it going to look like in a second term? DONALD TRUMP JR. I don't think he was a divisive figure at all. I think the media created divisiveness around him. They lied about Russia-Russia collusion, they said he was a traitor, they went after him in every which way as possible. If the media actually starts being an honest broker, talking about the things he did, the prosperity he brought, the peace deals that he signed around the world, rather than the disaster we're living right now, I think you'd do everyone in the country a big favor. SOBOROFF: I know immigration is important to him. I covered the family separation crisis closely, will we continue to see policies like separating 5,000 children deliberately from their parents? TRUMP JR.: You mean the Obama Administration. SOBOROFF: You know they didn't do that, sir. TRUMP JR.: Sure. SOBOROFF: Will there be a second family separation policy? TRUMP JR.: It’s MSDNC, so I expect nothing less from you clowns, even today, even 48 hours later, you couldn't wait. You couldn't wait with your lies and with your nonsense, so just get out of here. SOBOROFF: The nomination continues here in the Florida delegation, we're about to hear from Eric and Don Jr.  

As rumors swirl around the failed assassination of Donald Trump, one Christian “prophet” is going viral for predicting the event months ago. The man, Brandon Biggs, claimed that he saw an attempt on Trump’s life. “The bullet flew by his ear and it came so close to his head that it busted his eardrum,” Biggs said. “He fell to his knees during this time frame and he started worshiping the Lord. He got radically born again.” While it’s eerie how similar the vision is to what actually happened, there are pieces of the story that don’t quite add up. And Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” isn’t buying it. “It sounds similar to what happened over the weekend, but that doesn’t cut it for a prophet of God,” Stuckey explains. “A true prophet of God who received a vision from God — which I will always have the utmost skepticism about and you should too — will be right. They will be 100% right.” “They won’t say something that is similar to something that happened. I don’t think that Trump blew his eardrum. I didn’t hear anything about that. Did he really drop to his knees, start worshiping God? I mean, I guess this person could say that was a metaphorical part of the vision.” “Look, in these chaotic and crazy times, there are always going to be people who will capitalize on your fear to tell you that God has given them some kind of vision,” she continues, adding, “Again, if they are from God, they are going to be 100% right. I don’t know anyone who fits the bill.” Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Fan favorite UFC star and boxer Nate Diaz is suing a digital company Fanmio and its CEO for allegedly failing to pay the bulk of his fight purse after a recent boxing match.Diaz defeated fellow MMA star turned boxer Jorge Masvidal late in the evening of July 6, 2024. With several press conferences and more social media promotion than is typical for Diaz, the fighter seemingly put a lot of effort into getting eyes on the fight.After selling out the Honda Center in Anaheim, California, it may now be clear why Diaz put so much time into promotions.According to a new lawsuit by Diaz and his legal team, he is still owed $9 million for the fight after Fanmio and CEO Solomon Engel allegedly failed to pay the vast majority of his fight fee.Journalist Ariel Helwani revealed the lawsuit on his show "The MMA Hour" after being sent the legal filing by Diaz's manager, Zach Rosenfield. Helwani read the introduction of the complaint — filed in the Southern District of Florida — live on the air and said it explained the lawsuit in detail."This case involves an outright fraud committed by defendants Fanmio and its president and owner, Solomon Engel, upon famed mixed martial artist and boxer Nathan Diaz," Helwani began.He added that "Diaz and his representatives were skeptical that Fanmio and its representatives" had enough money to pay Diaz but were assured "repeatedly" that the company had the "financial resources" to pay him and that the payments would be guaranteed.$1 million was to be paid up front, with $9 million after the fight, the lawsuit alleged."Fanmio and Engel are now reneging," the lawsuit continued, with the company allegedly having made a "flurry of desperate calls" to Diaz's representatives to provide excuses as to why it couldn't pay.Diaz's representatives alleged that Engel said that he was going to lose more money than anticipated from the event if he paid Diaz in full and that his wife may divorce him over further financial losses.He also allegedly claimed that if he paid Diaz the full amount, he might have to claim bankruptcy. The Fanmio CEO released a statement that called Diaz's lawsuit "frivolous:""Nate Diaz has filed a frivolous lawsuit against Fanmio which claims that fraud and breach of contract were committed by Fanmio, yet neither has taken place. In fact, Diaz has already been paid seven figures in connection with the fight."Engel continued, alleging that the comments that have been made about him rise to the level of defamation."Making salacious and defamatory statements to the media in order to harm my family and I has only strengthened my resolve to ensure that the truth will triumph."Solomon also said that he looked forward to "resolving this dispute through the appropriate process" and that he was "confident that justice will prevail." — (@) Diaz's manager said that the fighter would not be making public comments about the lawsuit.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Supreme Court recently ruled that former President Donald Trump does have some measure of presidential immunity for actions taken in his official capacity as president. This ruling has roiled the ongoing criminal cases against Trump, as prosecutors scramble to plan their next moves and Trump's defense team plans a series of countermoves. Blaze News spoke with a number of legal experts, including both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys, as well as attorneys for constitutional legal organizations to get a sense for how these developments will impact both the pace and the substance of Trump's criminal trials. Trump currently faces four separate prosecutions, all of which at least potentially are impacted by the Supreme Court's ruling. One of the cases brought against Trump is led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, alleging that Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election outcome by spreading false election-fraud claims. The indictment listed four counts against Trump, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Another, currently being tried in Florida, charges the former president with improperly handling classified documents. This case has been dismissed, for now, by U. S. District Judge Eileen Cannon. A third trial centering on alleged payments made by Trump as hush money to Stormy Daniels ended in May. A fourth state prosecution brought by DA Fani Willis charges Trump with violations of Georgia state law based on post-election calls to Georgia state officials.The motion that gave rise to the Supreme Court's ruling was filed in the Special Counsel case. Trump's legal team had argued that the entire prosecution was unconstitutional because it interfered with his inherent authority as the leader of the executive branch to ensure that the laws of this country are faithfully executed and that therefore he should enjoy total immunity from prosecution. 'It throws a wrench into all the plans to try to get Trump on this lawfare.'The motion to dismiss the case was heard by the Supreme Court, which ruled on July 1 that Trump has "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority." Additionally, the former president has "at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts." And, lastly, the justices determined that Trump has "no immunity for unofficial acts.""Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President's exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity," the ruling read.While liberals, including some of the justices in the Supreme Court's minority, practically hyperventilated about the decision, many legal observers, including criminal defense attorney David W. Fischer, described the court's ruling as "expected." "Since Members of Congress, judges, and governors enjoy some type of immunity for their official acts, and the President already has sweeping immunity from civil lawsuits, the Supreme Court's decision was a surprise to nobody except partisan legal analysts on MSNBC," Fischer told Blaze News.The corporate media has framed Smith's case against Trump as an "election interference" case, but America First Legal Vice President Dan Epstein told Blaze News that this is not accurate, noting that it is actually "about whether Trump interfered with a government function.""The reality is that he was acting within the scope of his Constitutional and official duties. For any case involving the former President, as long as he acted consistently with his constitutional powers and his discretionary powers, then he should be immune from judgement," Epstein said.'Devil's in the details': The specifics of the high court's opinion While the Supreme Court ruled on Trump's immunity motion and provided some guidelines for lower courts to use when determining which of Trump's actions are covered by presidential immunity, it declined to rule on specifics or define what constitutes an official act, noting that "no court thus far has drawn that distinction." The decision will be left up to the lower courts, as the Supreme Court is "a court of final review and not first view." Will Chamberlain, senior counsel with the Article III project, told Blaze News that the special counsel case against Trump would likely be "delayed for years" as a result of the ruling. "It's not just because the Supreme Court reversed and sent it back down for a hearing at the district court," Chamberlain explained. "The way that the Supreme Court has dealt with this, is said, 'The only question that we're going to resolve now: Is there such a thing as presidential immunity for official acts? Yes.' But the contours of what that immunity looks like and how it applies to specific facts in the indictment, none of that has been settled by the Supreme Court.""I think we're looking at years of litigation," he said.The lower courts were accused of "render[ing] their decisions on a highly expedited basis" despite the case's "unprecedented nature," the opinion remarked.The Supreme Court noted that presidential immunity "extends to the 'outer perimeter' of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are 'not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.'" It also mentioned that such immunity equally applies to all officials in the Oval Office.'Fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.'When considering what constitutes an official versus nonofficial act, the justices explained that the courts may not inquire about the president's potential motives."Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on 'every allegation that an action was unlawful,' depriving immunity of its intended effect," the ruling stated.Former federal prosecutor and former Trump attorney Jim Trusty told Blaze News that the court's determination was "largely predictable" but noted that "as is typical in precedent-making cases, the devil's in the details.""Specifically, the prohibition against considering motive in classifying official vs. personal acts is huge. It basically means the Court wants a categorical (broad) approach to the immunity boundaries, and that it will not accept anti-Trump cynicism affecting the lower court decisions," Trusty explained.In its opinion, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecution's allegations against Trump involving his discussions with the acting Attorney General "are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President's official relationship to the office held by that individual." However, the court also contended that Trump's conversations with former Vice President Mike Pence and other state officials, as well as his comments to the public, "present more difficult questions."The ruling explained that Trump's interactions with Pence are "at least presumptively immune from prosecution," regarding allegations that Trump attempted to pressure Pence to reject the 2020 electoral votes."The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government's burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump's alleged attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch," the opinion read.Additionally, it contended that prosecuting a president for official actions "poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession." The threat of potential criminal prosecution for official acts may prompt "hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly," the justices presented."A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office," the opinion noted.Associate Justices of the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson shared dissenting opinions, arguing that the ruling placed Trump "above the law."'The politics and optics would be devastating.'However, the Supreme Court's opinion contended that presidential immunity actually "preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives." The ruling accused the prosecution of "fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.""The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next," the opinion read.The high court vacated the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals' prior ruling and sent the case back to be reconsidered based on its opinion. It stated that Trump "assert[ed] a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes," but some legal analysts are calling the ruling a major victory for the former president. A big win for Trump in the federal cases?Trusty told Blaze News that the Supreme Court's verdict presents "a huge problem" for Special Counsel Jack Smith and specifically contended that the grand jury process for both federal cases was "heavy-handed and overreaching.""The prosecutors put many witnesses before the grand jury to discuss things that turn out to be within the category of official acts," Trusty explained. "At first blush, Jack Smith was facing a paring down of his indictment, where official acts would need to be redacted but the case could continue forward. But the SCOTUS opinion specifically establishes that the indictment process needs to be clean of immunized information being presented to the grand jury."He told Blaze News that the Department of Justice's "best course of action" may be to "dismiss the current indictment and re-present a stripped down (i.e., more legitimate) case to a new grand jury." However, Trusty said the DOJ will have "no interest in going that route, as the politics and optics would be devastating.""But that would actually be the prudent thing to do at this juncture," Trusty added.In a statement to Blaze News, Epstein called the court's opinion "the right decision based on the clear meaning of the Constitution.""America First Legal made this argument clear in our amicus brief. It was the right decision, and it was the obvious decision," Epstein said.Chamberlain told Blaze News that he anticipated the Supreme Court would grant Trump some presidential immunity, but he "didn't expect them to make such a broad holding when it came to evidence of official acts being admissible, even in cases where the official acts themselves are not being charged in the indictment.""The end result here is, I think President Trump's going to win, in which case, obviously, this prosecution will be just dropped on day one of his presidency," Chamberlain continued. "I think the Georgia case against President Trump is now fatally flawed. And there's a big question about whether or not some of the other people in the Georgia indictment — people like Jeff Clark, who is the assistant attorney general — if their cases also need to be dismissed because evidence of official acts was included."He added, "The Florida case also has some official acts because it deals with the period of time right around the end of the presidency when President Trump allegedly took classified documents down to Mar-a-Lago." Notably, the district judge who dismissed this case did so on the unrelated basis that Smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional — a position that was adopted by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion. Fischer told Blaze News that the Supreme Court's recent ruling ensures that the federal cases against Trump will not proceed until 2025. He noted that a Trump election win would mark the end of the cases.'A legitimate shot of obtaining a new trial.'After attempting to "fast-track" the case, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan "now has her hands tied," Fischer stated."Even if she orders a trial before the election, Trump's lawyers can appeal her rulings on immunity-related evidentiary issues, which will delay the trial well into 2025," he said.What's next for the New York case? Some legal analysts did not anticipate that the Supreme Court's opinion would impact the New York criminal case against Trump, in which the former president was found guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records stemming from so-called hush money payments Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen claims he made to porn actress Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair she had with Trump in 2006, well before his presidency.Acting Justice Juan Merchan recently agreed to postpone sentencing in the case after Trump's legal team requested permission to file a motion to overturn the jury's guilty verdict in light of the high court's immunity ruling. Trump's attorneys claimed that District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecutors secured the verdict, in part, by submitting evidence during Trump's time as president, therefore potentially falling within his official acts. In an interview with CNN, Trump's attorney Will Scharf laid out the argument."The Supreme Court was very clear that for acts that fall within the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities, acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution, that evidence of those acts cannot be used to try essentially private acts," Scharf said. "At the very least, we deserve a new trial where those immune acts will not come into evidence, as the Supreme Court dictated today."Chamberlain called the Supreme Court's opinion "a very, very good holding for President Trump," adding that "there's a very good shot that the judge in New York will have to declare a mistrial. There won't even be a sentencing.""I mean, if he's [Merchan] going to follow the law, he's probably going to have to declare a mistrial," he told Blaze News. "The other problem for Judge Merchan and Alvin Bragg is that the verdict form was not specific."Chamberlain explained that some verdict forms include an interrogatory format that lists various questions posed to jurors, but "apparently that wasn't done in New York." "That's another reason I think a mistrial is likely there," he told Blaze News. "The immunity holding, and especially the component that says you can't even include evidence of it — it throws a wrench into all the plans to try to get Trump on this lawfare."Fischer told Blaze News that he believes Trump has "a legitimate shot of obtaining a new trial" because Merchan "clearly erred in allowing immunity-challenged evidence to get in front of the jury.""Also, Trump could potentially file an appeal challenging the court's immunity ruling, which could push sentencing back until after Inauguration Day. If the case is not resolved by Trump's potential inauguration, all New York proceedings would have to stop during his presidency and Trump would not be a convicted felon," Fischer added.In a statement to Blaze News, Epstein remarked that the alleged payments were "part of his presidency," not before it."That means he exercised his judgment not as a private citizen but as a President. Compare that to Bill Clinton. In the Clinton v. Jones case, all the facts of that case existed when he became president. The facts of the Bragg case overlap with when Trump was president," Epstein stated. "Second, notwithstanding the validity of the prosecution's theory — if that theory is correct, then it is automatic that he is immune. The Office of Legal Counsel took the position that candidate Trump's communications after he received the nomination as president were presumptively privileged. Accordingly, if his acts have the presumption of privilege, then that is the presumption of immunity."Under the Supreme Court's opinion, testimony from some of the witnesses in the New York case who shared interactions they had with Trump after he was elected "should have been off-limits," Trusty said."I think January 6 and Georgia are the most damaged cases by this opinion's reach, but there are arguments relating to the Mar-a-Lago indictment and possibly the Bragg prosecution that have some vitality to them," he told Blaze News.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Former president Donald Trump made a triumphant return to the spotlight at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on Tuesday, his bandaged ear a reminder of the assassination attempt he'd survived just two days earlier at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, the latest episode of the popular comedy podcast "Kill Tony" featured the triumphant return of comic Shane Gillis' famous impression of the 45th president — this time performed in full Trump regalia. The episode, as usual recorded live at Austin, Texas, venue Comedy Mothership, started with a special, top-secret guest: "Joe Biden" (portrayed by comic Adam Ray). After slowly walking out on stage with a vacant grin, Ray joined host Tony Hinchcliffe and his producer Brian Redban on the dais to watch show regular Casey Rocket warm up the crowd. Ray's Biden-esque rambling was then cut off by patriotic, MAGA-themed video montage, leading into Gillis' entrance as Trump. As in Milwaukee, the crowd erupted. While the episode was prerecorded on July 8, the timing for its release could not have been better. 'This man, showered with his daughter. Do you believe this?'Gillis and Ray stayed in character for nearly two-and-a-half hours, exchanging presidential jabs, with Gillis honing in on certain creepy allegations about the incumbent. When a guest comedian revealed getting married at 17 years old, Gillis joked that it was a great age for "showering with your dad, the way [Biden's] daughter did.""Look it up! You're going to be very, very surprised that this guy, this man, showered with his daughter. Do you believe this? Till she was 13," he added. "I love my family!" Ray replied, displaying the trademark Biden smirk.Gillis was referring to the diary of Biden's daughter Ashley, in which she recorded a disturbing childhood memory of showering with her father."Was I molested? I think so," she wrote.The faux presidents also touched on foreign policy. After a performance by a former Army Ranger, who revealed he had been deployed to Afghanistan three times, host Tony Hinchcliffe remarked that Trump did not get the credit that he deserved for ending the war in the Middle East.Gillis as Trump then jabbed at Biden's botched pullout from Afghanistan: "I wanted out of there and then what Joe did ... what an absolute disgrace, this was horrible." The Ranger agreed and said that he would be voting for Trump in 2024, as he did in 2020. The crowd's genial reaction to Gillis' antics revealed something "Kill Tony" fans have known for a long time: The liberal, anti-Trump stranglehold on comedy is weakening. Just contrast Gillis' generally affectionate ribbing of Trump with the tone-deaf attempt at humor by Jack Black's Tenacious D bandmate Kyle Gass. While playing a concert in Australia the day after the shooting, Black sang "Happy Birthday" to Gass, then asked him to make a wish. Gass jokingly asked that any future would-be assassin not "miss Trump next time." The chilly response to Gass' remark, both at the venue and online, would seem to indicate that the appetite for such ideologically driven Trump "humor" has dwindled. See on Instagram Instead of tired Orange-Man-Hitler material, Gillis and Ray both offered exaggerated yet fundamentally accurate portrayals of Trump and Biden, respectively. If Gillis' Trump came off better, it wasn't because of some kind of partisan bias on the part of the show. In other words, it's funny because it's true. The raucous response that night from an audience in one of America's most notoriously liberal towns offers a hopeful sign that real comedy — the type that puts laughter before politics — will never go out of style. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called on Bob Menendez to step down from his seat after a jury found him guilty on all 16 charges in a federal bribery case. Prosecutors said Menendez had used his powerful Senate seat to sell favors to Egypt and other clients. Among those charges were bribery, acting as a foreign agent, extortion, wire fraud, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Schumer called for him to resign minutes after the conviction was announced on Tuesday. "In light of this guilty verdict, Senator Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign," wrote Schumer in a message on social media. Other Democrats joined the chorus against the senator from New Jersey. "I called on Sen. Menendez to resign after a mountain of damning evidence against him was made public. Now that he's been convicted on all counts, there's absolutely no excuse: He must resign or be expelled," said Rep. Jeff Jackson of North Carolina. Democrat Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey also called on him to resign in a lengthy statement. "This is a dark, painful day for the people of New Jersey. Representing people in Congress demands the public's trust. When any elected official violates that trust, it is a betrayal of the oath we take to serve the people who’ve elected us," wrote Booker in part. "I call on Senator Menendez to resign. I originally did so last fall because of the severity of the allegations against him and how they shook the public’s trust," he added. "Now, with this conviction, the urgency for Senator Menendez to step down and for the governor to appoint a replacement has even more urgency."Democrat New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said that if Menendez refused to step down, the Senate should expel him. Many Democrats called for Menendez to resign after he was indicted on the charges. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was especially acidic in his criticism of his congressional colleague. "This wasn't politics as usual; this was politics for profit," said Damian Williams, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Some of the charges carry a maximum sentence of 20 years. If Menendez refuses to step down from his Senate seat, he can be expelled with a two-thirds vote of the legislative chamber. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The White House has layered economic illiteracy atop its latest sop to the Democratic Party’s most disaffected voters.