Featured Stories:
‘Hellbent on hiding truth’: Dem leader pounces as DOJ official hints at holding back files
The top Democrat in the Senate has directly responded to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche after he said that "thousands" of Jeffrey Epstein files would be withheld by the Department of Justice despite a law requiring "all" documents to be released by Friday.
"I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks. So today, several hundred thousand. And then over the next couple weeks, I expect several hundred thousand more," Blanche told Fox News on Friday.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer responded by indicating that Democrats would not stand for the Trump DOJ flouting the law.
"The law Congress passed and President Trump signed was clear as can be - the Trump administration had 30 days to release ALL the Epstein files, not just some. Failing to do so is breaking the law. This just shows the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, and Pam Bondi are hellbent on hiding the truth," Schumer insisted. "Senate Democrats are working closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by Pam Bondi. We will not stop until the whole truth comes out."
"People want the truth and continue to demand the immediate release of all the Epstein files. This is nothing more than a cover up to protect Donald Trump from his ugly past," he added.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) suggested that Bondi would be "prosecuted" if the DOJ does not release the full Epstein files on Friday.
‘This is how communism starts’: MTG suggests SCOTUS ruling will spark civil war
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) scolded the U.S. Supreme Court after justices ruled that President Joe Biden's administration could remove razor wire placed at the border by Texas officials.
During an interview on Tuesday, Real America's Voice correspondent Ben Bergquam asked Greene about the recent Supreme Court ruling.
"And you, I noticed you mentioned the disastrous unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday, basically allowing the federal government to allow an invasion on our southern border," Bergquam stated. "How concerned are you with that and then the implications that that could have with their decisions around President Trump on the ballots going forward, especially with this lawfare weaponization of the justice system against President Trump?"
ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school
"Right. This is how communism starts," Greene replied. "I was just talking to a New Hampshire voter right here, an independent, and he was saying that statism is a concern, that big government is a concern. That's what the Biden administration absolutely has brought is big, powerful government, which is communism."
"I'm extremely concerned about that Supreme Court ruling," she continued. "We literally saw a ruling that's going to put the federal government at war with the state of Texas. What's going to be happening with the Border Patrol? What is going to be happening with Texas law enforcement? Are we actually going to see them fighting with one another?"
Greene called the ruling "the most radical, devastating thing that we have seen happen in a Supreme Court ruling, and I think Texas needs to stand their ground and we should join Texas in their fight against the federal government to defend their state, defend their border, defend their people."
"And I'm calling for that right now," she added.
Trump defamation trial postponed as juror falls sick and Alina Habba claims to have fever
Alina Habba, an attorney for Donald Trump, convinced a federal judge to postpone her client's defamation trial on Monday.
Moments after Monday's hearing started, Habba asked U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan to adjourn because her parents had been exposed to COVID-19, according to reports.
At the same time, a juror who was on their way to the trial began to feel sick, according to reports.
"Trump won't be taking the stand today [because] everyone's going home," reporter Molly Crane-Newman wrote. "Juror No. 3 was 'on the way to the city but feeling hot and nauseous' this morning."
ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school
"Alina Habba, who is beside Trump and not wearing a mask, tells the court she's had a fever. Kaplan grants a 1-day adjournment," she added.
Trump is accused of defaming writer E. Jean Carroll when he denied raping her. His testimony was expected this week.
Before adjourning, Kaplan denied another request for a mistrial from Trump's attorneys.
E. Jean Carroll lawyer expected to slam Trump with new evidence after adjournment: expert
Asked about what to expect when Donald Trump does make an appearance at the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial — which was set to restart Monday before being adjourned for a day because of illness — MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin explained that court attendees can expect Carroll's legal team to submit a barrage of new evidence against the former president.
"Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski, prompted Rubin, asking, "Where does this go after today? How much longer do you expect this to play out until they decide what the damages are?"
"I think it really depends on who testifies," Rubin replied. "There's one thing I know for sure is going to happen, and that is E. Jean Carroll's side is going to call Robbie Myers, she's E. Jean's former boss at Elle magazine. She is the editor-in-chief. She's going to testify to the damage to her reputation. After Robbie Meyers gets off the stand, I expect E.Jean Carroll's lawyers will further confront President Trump with some of his prior statements."
"Usually, you have to have a witness in the chair to introduce evidence. One exception is party admissions," she elaborated. "You know, Mika, as well as I do, the former president has given a series of depositions in which he said things that might be relevant to this case, even though the depositions were far afield from whether or not he defamed or sexually abused Carroll."
ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school
"The New York attorney general's case where he was deposed, he says a number of things about his net worth, brand value, how much cash on hand, all of which could be highly relevant to a jury considering punitive damages," she added.
Trump had been expected to take the stand on Monday, but a juror fell ill on the way to court and then the former president's lawyer complained of having a fever. The judge agreed to postpone the hearing for a day, which would have Trump testify on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
MSNBC 01 22 2024 07 33 07 youtu.be
Trump asks judge in E. Jean Carroll case to delay trial for New Hampshire primary
Donald Trump's attorney has asked a federal judge to postpone the former president's defamation trial so her client can campaign for the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.
The request came at a Monday hearing over allegations Trump defamed writer E. Jean Carroll after raping her. The judge had announced an adjournment of Monday's hearing for a day after a juror fell sick and the attorney, Alina Habba, complained of having a fever.
Trump had been expected to take the stand. The one-day adjournment would mean he gives testimony on the day of the primary.
Habba asked U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan to postpone Tuesday's trial while New Hampshire voters cast their ballots.
ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene wants GOP leaders to coronate Trump — right now
Attorneys for Carroll opposed the request. Kaplan declined to rule immediately.
Judge has been left ‘incredulous’ by Alina Habba’s ‘rookie mistakes’: court watchers
MSNBC's Lisa Rubin spent most of Thursday inside New York courtroom where day three of the defamation trial regarding comments Donald Trump made to E. Jean Carroll unwound.
And she had a view of the widely-mocked performance of attorney Alina Habba.
"Lisa, I was reading through our producer's ongoing log, so correct me if I'm wrong with anything here," host Chris Jansing began as Rubin joined him. "But at one point today, Judge (Lewis) Kaplan told Alina Habba, come on, this is evidence 101. Another, from our producer in the courtroom, said Kaplan seemed incredulous at a question that she had asked."
Jansing said that it's clear that Habba is a "forceful defender of the former president's position, right, which is her job." But he added, "We saw a lot of headlines late yesterday, overnight, about the tension between her and the judge."
Before the trial, those who know Kaplan warned that he was a no-nonsense judge and a stickler for the rules. Habba learned that firsthand as he repeatedly hit her over struggles with basic courtroom procedure.
"Judge Kaplan, in some respects, is an equal opportunity grouch about enforcement of the evidence in court rules," Rubin, a legal analyst for the network.
"He admonished E. Jean Carroll several times to stick to the question and answer it simply and directly. There was another evidentiary dispute later in the morning that Alina Habba won, and he looked at her and said, 'Ms. Habba, when you're right, you're right.'"
ALSO READ: Highland Park fires rec director who’s suffering from mass shooting-induced PTSD
The majority of the judge's frustrations, however, have been with Habba. That can reflect poorly on her and on Trump to the jury, several legal analysts explained Wednesday.
"Alina Habba has a lot of trouble asking questions according to the rules of evidence and civil procedure in federal courts," Rubin explained. "She wanted to know when E. Jean Carroll had an agent, and she said I hired my agent in 1982 or '3, and E. Jean Carroll had already testified she no longer has an agent. Habba's next question was, when did you fire your agent, and of course, that assumes something not in evidence. E. Jean Carroll never said she fired an agent. She simply said she no longer has an agent."
Rubin called those "rookie mistakes for someone in a federal litigation practice."
One would expect a former president to have a lawyer "with greater facility and fluency in trial practice than Alina Habba has shown herself to say. Those are the kind of mistakes that have caused Judge Kaplan to say, 'Oh, come on, this is evidence 101."
See the full discussion in the video below or at the link here.
The rookie mistakes of Alina Habba youtu.be
Trump theatrics are already ‘adding zeros’ to E. Jean Carroll payout: analyst
Donald Trump’s courtroom shenanigans have already begun to “add zeros” to the payout he’ll be ordered to pay E. Jean Carroll in her defamation lawsuit, an MSNBC legal analyst predicts.
Katie Phang had a ringside seat Tuesday in the New York City court where both the former president and Carroll, the woman Trump has been found liable of sexually abusing and defaming, appeared in the same room for the first time in years.
“Trump appearing for this trial will most assuredly just be adding more zeros to that jury verdict,” Phang writes. “He appears to have failed to learn his lesson.”
Phang points to Trump’s inability to remain quiet on the subject of Carroll — his Truth Social account smeared the former journalist even as he sat in the courtroom — and the no-nonsense demeanor of Lewis Kaplan, the federal judge overseeing the trial.
“If Trump tries to pull any stunts before Kaplan, who runs a very, very tight ship, the former president could be looking at being held in contempt,” Phang argues.
“There’s no leeway for theatrics or drama by Trump — in Kaplan’s own words, ‘no do-overs allowed.’’”
These extra antics can only build on the strength of the case brought by Carroll, who successfully sued the former president for defamation and sexual abuse last year, Phang argues.
Trump has been found liable both for sexual abuse in a luxury Manhattan department store in the 1990s and the denials a jury found last year to be defamatory against Carroll. Trump denies wrongdoing.
The current trial involves other comments Trump directed at Carroll in 2019, while president. The judge has already found him liable, meaning the jury is considering damages.
ALSO READ: Republican congressman violates federal law with botched cryptocurrency disclosures
Carroll’s legal team comes to this trial with an experienced expert witness the previous jury found “compelling and credible,” Phang writes.
In comparison, Trump has taken to television and social media to echo claims Kaplan has already ruled to be defamatory.
“His offensive conduct has been covered widespread by the media,” Phang concludes, “which means a very high probability that prospective jurors have also heard and seen his repeated defamation of Carroll, which always presents its own challenge.”
Popular articles
‘Hellbent on hiding truth’: Dem leader pounces as DOJ official hints at holding back files
The top Democrat in the Senate has directly responded to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche after he said that "thousands" of Jeffrey Epstein files would be withheld by the Department of Justice despite a law requiring "all" documents to be released by Friday.
"I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks. So today, several hundred thousand. And then over the next couple weeks, I expect several hundred thousand more," Blanche told Fox News on Friday.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer responded by indicating that Democrats would not stand for the Trump DOJ flouting the law.
"The law Congress passed and President Trump signed was clear as can be - the Trump administration had 30 days to release ALL the Epstein files, not just some. Failing to do so is breaking the law. This just shows the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, and Pam Bondi are hellbent on hiding the truth," Schumer insisted. "Senate Democrats are working closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by Pam Bondi. We will not stop until the whole truth comes out."
"People want the truth and continue to demand the immediate release of all the Epstein files. This is nothing more than a cover up to protect Donald Trump from his ugly past," he added.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) suggested that Bondi would be "prosecuted" if the DOJ does not release the full Epstein files on Friday.
‘The brink of illegitimacy’: Professors warn no turning back for ‘noxious’ Supreme Court
Two American university professors Friday warned the "noxious" Supreme Court can no longer be saved.
Harvard law professor Ryan Doerfler and Yale law professor Samuel Moyn wrote an opinion piece published by The Guardian about how the high court's legitimacy has been increasingly damaged under President Donald Trump's second term. Conservative justices have handed Trump and the MAGA movement a number of wins, including overturning of Roe v. Wade, "what remains of the Voting Rights Act," and losing its "nonpartisan image."
The role of the court has shifted and with the conservative majority, the liberal justices had previously "proceeded as if their conservative peers would continue to take their own institution’s legitimacy seriously."
But over the last several months, that has also changed.
"Yet with the conservative justices shattering the Supreme Court’s non-partisan image during Trump’s second term, liberals are not adjusting much," Doerfler and Moyn wrote. "The liberal justices – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – have become much more aggressive in their dissents. But they disagree with one another about how far to concede that their conservative colleagues have given up any concern for institutional legitimacy. Encouragingly, Jackson pivoted to 'warning the public that the boat is sinking' – as journalist Jodi Kantor put it in a much-noticed reported piece. Jackson’s fellow liberals, though, did not follow her in this regard, worrying her strategy of pulling the 'fire alarm' was 'diluting' their collective 'impact.'"
By now, Trump has used a "shadow docket" of emergency orders to his advantage and to advance his policies.
"Similarly, many liberal lawyers have focused their criticism on the manner in which the Supreme Court has advanced its noxious agenda – issuing major rulings via the 'shadow' docket, without full-dress lawyering, and leaving out reasoning in support of its decisions," according to the writers.
Critics have argued that the conservative-majority Supreme Court, including Trump's appointees, has used the shadow docket to issue consequential rulings on controversial issues like abortion, voting rights, and immigration with minimal explanation or public deliberation, effectively allowing the court to reshape law through expedited procedures that bypass traditional briefing and oral argument requirements.
Now, "progressives are increasingly converging on the idea of both expanding and 'disempowering' federal courts and looking to see how to shake up the status quo."
"Rather than adhere to the same institutionalist strategies that helped our current crisis, reformers must insist on remaking institutions like the US supreme court so that Americans don’t have to suffer future decades of oligarchy-facilitating rule that makes a parody of the democracy they were promised," Doerfler and Moyn wrote.
"In Trump’s second term, the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court has brought their institution to the brink of illegitimacy. Far from pulling it back from the edge, our goal has to be to push it off," the writers added.
