Andrew Weissman of Russiagate hoax fame has a “man crush” on the corrupt New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan. “With respect to Judge Merchan, I have like a man crush on him. He is such a great judge. If you looked in a dictionary for judicial temperament, that’s what you would get.” He claims […] The post So Cringe! Andy Weissman Has a “Man Crush” on Judge Merchan appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Jeremy Renner said as much as he loved working with Tom Cruise and others that were part of the “Mission: Impossible” franchise, he had to walk away from it so he could be a dad. Speaking to Collider, the 53-year-old actor said working on “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” in 2011 and “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation” in 2015 was a great experience, but because of the films’ schedule, he stopped doing it so he could spend time with his family and now 11-year-old daughter Ava — whom he shares with his ex-wife Sonni Pacheco. “I had to leave that [franchise],” Renner told the outlet. “It requires a lot of time away. It’s all in London. I had to go be a dad. It just wasn’t gonna work out then.” “I was supposed to do more with them,” he added. “I love those guys. I love Tom [Cruise] so much. We had so much fun, and I love that character a lot.” When asked if maybe he could return to the franchise now that his “daughter is older,” Renner admitted it “could happen.” Jeremy Renner Says His Return to the #MissionImpossible Franchise Is Possible: https://t.co/S7ju8trJ4O — TheWrap (@TheWrap) May 28, 2024 “I’d always jump into a ‘Mission: Impossible’ anytime and back into [IMF agent William] Brandt,” he added. “It’s great.” The comments echoed ones the actor made in 2021 to Men’s Health magazine, when he explained that he was willing to walk away from his Marvel Cinematic Universe role as Clint Barton/Hawkeye because the busy filming schedule was making it hard to see his daughter. CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP “It taught me how to have the nuts to say, ‘Everyone, f*** off. It’s my time with my daughter,'” Renner said of the ultimatum he gave Marvel execs at the time. “I said, ‘Fine, recast me. I’m going to be here with my daughter.’ It was pretty gnarly,” he added. “Acting and everything else goes out the window,” Renner continued. “Until my daughter says, ‘I want to hang out with my friends, and I don’t want to be around you so much, Daddy.'” In January 2023, Renner was nearly crushed under a 14,300-pound snowcat in an accident near his Nevada home. Over the last year, he’s undergone extensive therapy in order to recover from the accident that left him with more than 30 broken bones. The actor recently talked about the life-threatening injuries he sustained in the accident and said, “Not one doctor, early on, said ‘You’re gonna pull through, you’re gonna be able to see again, you’re gonna be able to walk again, you’re gonna be able to breathe right, you’re gonna be able to talk,'” The Hollywood Reporter reported. “No one gave me anything,” he added. “I think they were all communicating with my family. And I feel like if they didn’t tell me it must have been pretty bleak.” “The Avengers” star said when he heard there would be limitations to his recovery, it only fueled him to get back on his feet faster.

Scottie Scheffler and his attorney celebrated on Wednesday news that prosecutors in Kentucky were dropping all charges against the world’s No.1-ranked golfer. The four criminal charges against Scheffler, including a felony assault charge, were all dropped after Jefferson County (KY) Attorney Mike O’Connell said that his office cannot move forward with the prosecution and that Scheffler’s account of the incident — that it was a “big misunderstanding” — was “corroborated by the evidence.” The 27-year-old golfer was arrested on May 17 after he attempted to drive into the Valhalla Golf Club in Louisville, Kentucky, to prepare for the second round of the PGA Championship. A fatal accident involving a pedestrian had stopped traffic, preventing Scheffler and other golfers from getting to the golf club’s entrance, but Scheffler said he was told by a police officer to drive “the opposite way with the traffic” to get into the golf club. Moments later, another officer with the Louisville Police Department, Detective Bryan Gillis, reportedly told Scheffler to stop his vehicle. Scheffler was accused of failing to come to a stop, and police claimed the golfer “dragged” Gillis when he continued to drive forward. After Scheffler stopped his car, the golfer was arrested and taken to jail where he was charged with second-degree assault of a police officer, third-degree criminal mischief, reckless driving, and disregarding traffic signals from an officer directing traffic. Scheffler responded to the news in a statement saying that it was a “misfortunate understanding” and that he held no ill will toward the arresting officer. “I wish to put this incident behind me and move on, and I hope he will do the same,” Scheffler said. “Police officers have a difficult job and I hold them in high regard. This was a severe miscommunication in a chaotic situation.” CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP Scheffler said that while he appreciated all the support he’s received during this time, he wants everyone to remember “the real tragedy of May 17,” which was the death of John Mills. “My thoughts and prayers continue to be with John Mills and his family,” he added. Scheffler’s attorney Steve Romines said that he was happy with the outcome of the case and that there were grounds to file a lawsuit, but Scheffler did not want to escalate matters and did not want Louisville taxpayers to pay him if he won. “I think everybody sees something like this happen and realizes they’re one wrong turn or running into the wrong person away from going to jail themselves,” Romines said. “That’s why you don’t talk to the police because they are going to try and put words in your mouth and that’s exactly what they did.” Zach Jewell contributed to this report.

American Idol winner Abi Carter’s “angelic” voice turned this Evanescence hit into a mesmerizing masterpiece when she performed it during the Top 8 episode. The 21-year-old was the clear winner for many fans long before she officially took the crown on May 19. Her mix of talent, passion, and uniqueness gave her exactly what she needed to edge out the stiff competition. During the Top 8, each contestant performed a song that was hand-picked by a judge, and Luke Bryan chose Evanescence’s Bring Me To Life. The selection was absolutely perfect for Abi’s voice, and her cover ended up making fans love her even more. As Abi Carter showcased her heavenly voice, Luke and his fellow judges, Katy Perry and Lionel Richie, watched, wide-eyed, as the crowd went wild. When she finished, the judges bowed to her. “Just take it to another level,” Luke gushed after revealing he had chosen the single. “I mean, from the time, the first note, to your approach…you knew it was game on, and you were here to play and be serious.” “You were SO professional, so on it… I’m telling you, you took it to that next level of your life. That was amazing!” said Lionel. Katy Perry, who fell in love during Abi’s audition, was quite literally floored by the performance. She fell and had to catch her breath after the singer concluded. Her actions spoke louder than words. But she still took a moment to tell Abi that Bring Me To Life was “the best performance of the night.” Abi Carter’s American Idol win gave her $125,000. While the details are murky, American Idol winners are also rumored to get “development deals” with 19 Recordings, according to Billboard. You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post Abi Carter Sent Shivers Down Our Spines With This Unforgettable “American Idol” Performance appeared first on InspireMore.

If all this sounds eerily familiar, it should

'Homeless families and tourists being forced to compete for the same accommodation'

Let’s get the obvious out of the way: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a rogue prosecutor, never should have brought his case against Donald Trump. But here we are, with a jury of 12 Manhattan residents being asked to decide whether the former president committed 34 felony offenses. And the only reason they are being asked to decide whether Trump committed 34 felony rather than misdemeanor offenses is because Bragg has sought to turn these ordinarily misdemeanor booking charges into felonies using a novel legal theory—essentially that Trump committed the bookkeeping offenses with the intent of covering up another crime. But what is that other crime?  And what does Bragg, a Democrat, have to prove about that other crime?  Those questions have been present throughout the case, but catapulted to the forefront Wednesday after Judge Juan Merchan gave startling instructions to the jury. For those unfamiliar, the instructions the judge gives to a jury tell the jurors what the applicable law is for the case they’re deciding. Here, Merchan told the jury that to convict Trump of falsifying business records in the first degree under New York Penal Law § 175.10, Bragg must prove—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Trump intended “to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” But the judge also told the jury that Bragg “need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.” That other crime?  According to Merchan, it would be a violation of New York Election Law § 17-152, which “provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election.” One of the law’s key—and confusing—phrases is “to promote or prevent the election … by unlawful means.” (My emphasis.) Merchan told the jury that to convict Trump, all 12 jurors “must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, [but they] need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.” Buckle up, because this is where things get weird. Merchan told jurors that those unlawful means could include violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act.  They could include falsifying certain other business records, including bank records and tax forms.  And they could include certain alleged state and federal tax law violations. But again, all of the jurors don’t have to agree which one of these three unlawful means Trump used—and never mind that the federal government previously declined to pursue any federal campaign finance violations against Trump.  Even rabid Trump haters who argue that this sort of instruction could be permissible under New York law anticipated that Merchan might “require unanimity anyway, just to be safe, rather than unnecessarily risking a guilty verdict that might not hold up on appeal.” Well, obviously he didn’t. It’s understandable why Trump lamented after closing arguments began Wednesday that even “Mother Teresa could not beat these charges.” Love him or hate him, all Americans should be troubled by the perversion of our criminal justice system that this prosecution has proven to be. The post Judge’s Problematic Jury Instructions in Trump’s Hush Money Trial appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The jury in former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan began deliberations Wednesday after closing arguments. The 12-member jury is tasked with determining whether to convict or acquit Trump on the 34 charges he faces. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to an alleged “hush money” payment to porn star Stormy Daniels late in the 2016 presidential campaign. Zack Smith, a former prosecutor who now is a Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow, sits down with “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain what discussions the jurors likely are having and possible outcomes of the trial. (Heritage launched The Daily Signal in 2014.) Listen to the podcast below or read the lightly edited transcript: Virginia Allen: Outside the Manhattan courtroom this morning, Trump spoke to reporters and called the case rigged. Allen: Joining us now to discuss the case and what to expect from the jury is former prosecutor and Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Zack Smith. Zack, thanks for being here. Zack Smith: Of course. Thanks for having me on. Allen: Zack, what do you make of Trump saying even Mother Teresa couldn’t beat these charges? Smith: Well, it’s certainly, you know, par for the course with President Trump’s way with words. But I do think it’s an acknowledgment that he’s facing a very tough jury pool here. This is a Manhattan jury, one that is likely not to be very favorable to Donald Trump. I think it’s also an acknowledgment that the jury instructions that the judge in this case gave to the jury, what he told them the applicable law was, what facts they had defined beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to convict Donald Trump of these charges is not very favorable to Donald Trump. You know, keep in mind, the legal theory behind this case has always been very murky. It’s always been very novel. Essentially, [District Attorney] Alvin Bragg is trying to bootstrap what would ordinarily be bookkeeping misdemeanor offenses into felony offenses. And the way he has to do that is to show that essentially, these bookkeeping offenses were done with the intent to cover up another crime. Now, what that other crime is, that’s somewhat of an open question. There’s been a lot made about whether it’s a federal campaign finance offense, which, by the way, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission both declined to pursue. But it’s possible it could also be a state-level campaign finance offense, maybe a tax-related offense. We’re not really sure. But the very unfavorable instruction the judge gave to the jury is, essentially, they don’t all have to agree on what the underlying offense would be in order for these bookkeeping charges to be elevated into felonies. That’s a very unfavorable jury charge for Donald Trump. It would be very interesting to see, if he’s convicted, whether that will hold up on appeal. Allen: Are the instructions that Judge Juan Merchan gave to the jury unusual? Smith: A lot of the jury instruction is boilerplate. There’s common things that any trial judge in any courtroom around the country would tell the jury, [for example] an explanation of what reasonable doubt is. The difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. Those are typical types of instruction you receive. Now, some of the instructions were unique to this case, and there were a lot of unique aspects to this case. Certainly, about the he talked about the weight. The jury is entitled to give Michael Cohen’s testimony, other factors that they can consider, in giving weight to that testimony. And then, of course, there were the unique charges related to the specific offenses charged in this case. And I suspect if there are issues with the jury [instructions] on appeal, again, if Donald Trump is convicted —which, by the way, isn’t guaranteed, but it’s certainly a possibility. That would be what I think those appellate issues would focus on. Allen: Zack, take us into the room where the jury is. What is the discussion that they’re likely having right now? Smith: Well, this is the million-dollar question, Virginia. This is something every trial lawyer wants to know. What is the jury deliberating? How do they go about their process, all of those things. And I think we have some idea, you know, typically the jury, they have to go back. They have to get settled in. Keep in mind, this was a very long trial with a voluminous amount of evidence. We saw that the prosecution took many, many hours just to go through that evidence, trying to essentially overwhelm the jury with the volume of evidence presented. And so it going to take the jury a little bit of time to go through that evidence and sort through it and decide what they have to decide on each count in order for Donald Trump to either be acquitted or convicted. I will say, Virginia, even though Donald Trump is facing a very unfavorable jury in this case, [former Trump lawyer] Michael Cohen’s testimony on the stand was absolutely disastrous. And I think it’s much more likely today that there’s a possibility that there could be a hung jury, meaning the jury can’t reach a unanimous verdict to either acquit or convict. That is a much more likely outcome today than it was at the beginning of the trial. But still, as you alluded to earlier, I think Donald Trump’s comments recognize that even still, this is a very unfavorable jury pool. And the instructions the judge gave to the jury were very unfavorable for Donald Trump as well. Allen: So if a hung jury is within the realm of possibilities, what are the other possible outcomes here, Zack? Smith: Well, if the jury hangs, if they can’t reach a verdict, certainly Alvin Bragg could retry Donald Trump on these charges. I would certainly hope he would not. But obviously, prudence and good judgment—has it been at the forefront of this case on Alvin Bragg’s part? The judge could also enter a directed verdict, essentially saying that the prosecution hadn’t met their burden of proof. I doubt he will do that as well, but that is a request that’s still outstanding by the Trump trial team. And then, of course, the jury could also either convict Donald Trump on some or all of the charges, or they could acquit him on some or all of the charges as well. And it will be really interesting to watch if the jury does convict Donald Trump on some, even some of the charges, even if they don’t convict him on all of the charges, what happens then? Will Donald Trump be sent to some type of custodial setting, Rikers Island, maybe a prison? Will he be sentenced to home confinement, probation? All of these are the unresolved questions that we’ll have to wait to see, because we’ve never before had a former president facing criminal charges, and certainly not a leading candidate to once again be the president of the United States. The post Former Prosecutor Assesses Jury Deliberation in Trump’s Criminal Trial appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“You can’t lead America with ancient ideas.” That was the claim—shouted, not spoken—by the president of the United States in what was considered by many to be the most divisive State of the Union address ever given before a joint session of Congress.  President Joe Biden’s March 7 lecture seemed to punctuate what has become a brutally disheartening term in office, with liberals demanding Americans throw aside traditional values and institutions for a “liberating” future of hedonistic affirmation in the pursuit of an ambiguous “equity.” This bastardized system of values—promoted by the Left to usurp the traditional American institutions of faith, family, and community—are now in the sights of Florida’s senior senator. “Faith, family, community—teach us who we are and what we’re here for,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R.-Fla., calls out in a new video, juxtaposing some of the most stark contrasts ever seen between the American Left and Right. Older video clips of Americans from every background singing, marching, and praying are contrasted with those of more recent LGBTQ+ parades, pro-abortion rallies, and news coverage of violent pro-Hamas protests. Unlike many political videos delivered amid the presidential election season that we observe every four years, making bland statements about the economy and the border, Rubio appears to be throwing a spotlight from his office on the stark divide between the two opposing political movements and ideological foundations beckoning to an exhausted and weary country battered by calls to abandon “ancient ideas.” These classic institutions “are the ones who teach us who we are and what we’re here for,” Rubio intoned, “but ties like these pose a threat to the Left, which insists that relationships exist only to affirm fleeting feelings and identities.” That charge isn’t without warrant, as public school officials and liberal activists around the country have spent the past several years and millions of dollars attempting to separate children from their parents, encouraging children to confide in those outside their “unsupportive” families. Rubio asserted that “the Left claims the only idea worth believing is its changing definition of ‘equity.’” That contrasts sharply with an image of Vice President Kamala Harris, who in a January 2023 speech created her own definitions for the words “equality” and “equity,” drawing wide criticism. Equality is when the teacher gives every student the same testEquity is when the teacher gives every student the same markHere’s our VP explaining that: pic.twitter.com/GC0xe7pK08— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 20, 2023 “Faith in woke ideology cannot replace faith in the Almighty God,” Rubio said. “Government programs and bureaucrats cannot stand in for family, and political echo chambers on social media are no match for real community.” Rubio’s assertion is not only correct, it’s a timely message Americans have shown they are drawn to. Favorability toward the Biden administration has plummeted sharply as a country that was told it was going to experience “unity” and “a return to normal” received instead crisis and devastation in the economy, at the border, and on the world stage. If other conservatives continue pushing messages like those in Rubio’s video, this could be a turning point for American society. A return to celebrating faith, family, and community as essential to the success of the United States would provide a far better foundation for growth as the Left’s fearmongering and guilt trips over these institutions no longer appear to hold voters in their sway. The post EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Rubio’s Killer Video Blow to the Left’s Depressive Values appeared first on The Daily Signal.

People Are Still Feeling the Pain of Inflation