The Secret Service has issued a statement regarding the recent conviction of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan. The agency emphasized that the 34 felony counts would not impact its duty to protect him.

“Today’s outcome has no bearing on the manner in which the United States Secret Service carries out its protective mission. Our security measures will proceed unchanged,” the agency said.

“For all settings around the world, we study locations and develop comprehensive and layered protective models that incorporate state of the art technology, protective intelligence and advanced security tactics to safeguard our protectees,” Secret Service’s chief of communications Anthony Guglielmi stated before the verdict was handed down on Thursday.

“The judge could sentence him to anything between zero and the max,” defense attorney Dan Horwitz, who formerly was a prosecutor for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, said to CBS News. “So he could sentence him to a period of months in jail, he could sentence him to a period of weeks in jail, he could sentence him to a sentence where he is required, for example, to go to jail every weekend for a period of time and then serve the rest of the sentence on probation.”

Norm Eisen, a lawyer and ex-diplomat known for his open criticism of the previous president, stated that approximately 10% of these cases result in the convicted individual being incarcerated, but emphasized that judges should not take this into account when determining sentencing.

“Trump could also be sentenced to home detention, where he would wear an ankle bracelet and be monitored rather than going to jail. Horwitz suggested that a home detention sentence, which walks a middle ground between no punishment and a stint in state prison, might be the most likely outcome. It would also satisfy Trump’s unusual security and political situation,” CBS News said.

“A home detention sentence would also make it possible for Trump to continue campaigning — albeit virtually — with the ability to hold news conferences and remain active on social media. Throughout the trial, Justice Juan Merchan stressed the importance of allowing Trump the ability to campaign and exercise his First Amendment rights as he seeks another term in the White House. But it’s just part of the equation that the judge must weigh in his decision,” the outlet added.

Horowitz mentioned that the ex-president’s persistent claims of innocence and criticism towards the judge and court may have a negative impact on his sentencing.

“Courts will credit a defendant who pleads guilty by accepting responsibility for their conduct, as opposed to not accepting responsibility going into trial and getting convicted,” he said as he explained that “the sentence after a trial because you didn’t accept responsibility is more stringent than it would have otherwise been.”

Former President Donald Trump recently addressed the possibility of facing jail time under Judge Juan Merchan’s jurisdiction. In an interview with Fox News, he expressed his belief that a potential prison sentence would serve as a pivotal moment for his followers.

“The legal maze that you’re still facing, and they could, a judge could decide to say, hey, house arrest or even jail. It could be faced,” Fox News host Pete Hegseth said to the former president.

“I saw one of my lawyers the other day on television saying, oh, no, you don’t want to do that to the press. I said don’t, you don’t beg for anything,” he said.

“That could happen,” the former president said of the prospect of him being sent to jail.

“I don’t know that the public would stand it, you know, I don’t. I’m not sure the public would stand for it. I think I think it would be tough for the public to take, you know, at a certain point, there’s a breaking point,” he predicted.

He also discussed the trial and shared his opinions on the way it was managed.

“It’s weaponization, and it’s a very dangerous thing. We’ve never had that in this country,” Trump said. “People get it. It’s a scam,” he said. “And the Republican Party… they’ve stuck together in this. They see it’s a weaponization of the Justice Department of the FBI and that’s all coming out of Washington.”

Additionally, he addressed the impact of the trial on his family, specifically his spouse, the former first lady Melania Trump.

“She’s fine, but I think it’s very hard for her,” he said. “She has to read all this crap. I think it’s probably in many ways, it’s tougher on my family than it is on me.”

WATCH: Trump Attorney Lays Out Plan To Fight BACKDuring an appearance on Fox News, Will Scharf, an attorney representing Donald Trump, hinted at the possibility of the former president filing a lawsuit against Alvin Bragg, the Democratic Manhattan District Attorney, for what he referred to as “malicious prosecution.” Scharf’s statement came in response to a query by host Dana Perino regarding potential actions Trump’s legal team might take if he were to be acquitted. Scharf indicated that they would need to assess their legal options, implying that the district attorney could be a potential target.

“But, I think the case for malicious prosecution here is extraordinarily strong,” Scharf said. “I mean, this is not a case that would have been brought against any defendant not named Donald Trump and any defendant who, frankly, wasn’t running for president.”

WATCH:

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith, who agreed to provide expert testimony in Donald Trump’s high-profile hush money trial, has openly criticized the legal strategy employed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Trump’s defense team was set to bring forward the seasoned expert from the Federal Election Commission to testify in the high-profile NY v. Trump case. However, their strategy hit a snag when Judge Juan Merchan dramatically limited the topics Smith could address, leading to his testimony being sidelined.

Speaking to Newsweek, Smith argues that Bragg’s theory is wrong and therefore could increase the defense’s ability to win on appeal if a conviction is made. Smith stated, “The legal theory on which the prosecution rests regarding possible [Federal Election Campaign Act] violations is wrong and this is an issue I care deeply about.”

“Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance. But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex. Even Antonin Scalia – a pretty smart guy, even you hate him – once said ‘this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out.’”

Smith continued, “Picture a jury in a product liability case trying to figure out if a complex machine was negligently designed, based only on a boilerplate recitation of the general definition of ‘negligence.’ They’d be lost without knowing technology & industry norms.”

Bradley Smith is known for his tenure as the chairman of the FEC. He served in this position from 2000 to 2005. Smith is recognized for his libertarian views on campaign finance, advocating for less regulation over political campaign spending and contributions. His stance has been that strict campaign finance laws can impede free speech and political participation. Since his time at the FEC, Smith has been involved in academic and legal discussions regarding campaign finance, often opposing measures that seek to impose greater limits on spending and contributions in political campaigns.

Judge Merchan determined that the proposed testimony of Trump’s expert would veer into the realm of “legal opinion.” The judge’s ruling necessitated a balanced approach, potentially allowing the DA’s office to introduce a counter-expert on the same legal theories. Judge Merchan allowed for the possibility of Smith to still take the stand. However, he restricted Smith’s testimony strictly to “general definitions and terms” of campaign finance law, significantly narrowing the scope of his input.

Smith revealed to Newsweek that he has consistently turned down the “vast majority” of requests to serve as an expert throughout his illustrious career. Over the span of three decades, he has accepted only six such engagements, indicating a selective approach to the roles he chooses to undertake.

“I am very disappointed that Judge Merchan barred this testimony while allowing Michael Cohen (not an expert) to describe the law—including a conclusion on the ultimate issue of Trump’s guilt—for ‘context.’ He also allowed the prosecutors to do the same in opening,” Smith said.

“Much of the commentary on the case — at least from those defending the former president — has consisted of accusations that Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin Bragg is abusing his power on a political vendetta and that Judge Juan Merchan is a biased partisan,” Smith wrote on The Federalist in April.

Trump has entered a plea of not guilty to 34 felony charges, vehemently denying any affair with Stormy Daniels. As the presumed GOP frontrunner for the 2024 presidential race, Trump is also juggling this trial—one of four criminal cases against him – with his campaign events. This might be the sole case to go before a jury prior to the November presidential election, with potential jail time looming over Trump should he be convicted.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that a lower court “clearly erred” in its assessment of South Carolina’s congressional district map. The high court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, declared that the circumstantial evidence presented fell “far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.”

The case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, challenged the congressional map drawn by the Republican-controlled South Carolina legislature following the 2020 Census. The NAACP and a District 1 voter had alleged that the map was a racial gerrymander designed to dilute the voting power of Black residents.

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling firmly rebuked the claim, revealing that the challengers failed to disentangle race from politics—a crucial distinction given the high correlation between race and party affiliation in South Carolina. “We start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” the Court noted.

The decision has political ramifications, particularly for District 1 which has been a hotbed of contention. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) who won the district by nearly 14 points in 2022 following the redistricting, hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a vindication of the legislature’s efforts to create a stronger Republican tilt in her district. The majority opinion underscored that the challengers’ evidence, which included expert reports and statistical analyses, was deeply flawed.

The Court pointed out that the experts failed to account for traditional districting principles such as geographical constraints and core retention—key factors in legitimate redistricting efforts. “The report of Dr. Kosuke Imai made no effort to disentangle race from politics,” the opinion stated. Additionally, the reports from other experts were criticized for using inferior methods and data, further weakening the Democrats’ case.

The Supreme Court also criticized the lower court for not giving enough weight to the legislature’s partisan goals, which were openly stated during the redistricting process. The legislature had aimed to solidify Republican control in District 1 while respecting traditional districting principles, a move that was deemed politically strategic rather than racially motivated. “The legislature’s priority was clear: to create a stronger Republican tilt in District 1,” the Court noted. “This political objective can explain the district’s design without resorting to racial considerations.”

Justice Alito wrote, “The Challengers provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, and their circumstantial evidence is very weak.” He further explained, “None of the facts on which the District Court relied to infer a racial motive is sufficient to support an inference that can overcome the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Republican officials successfully argued for the map’s use due to the imminent primary elections and the impracticality of implementing a new map in such a short time frame. The decision comes after the South Carolina Legislature’s 2022 redistricting efforts altered the 1st and 6th congressional districts, leading to accusations of racial gerrymandering.

The court found that over 30,000 African American voters in Charleston County were moved to different districts, resulting in a racial gerrymander. Despite the district court’s earlier ruling against the map, the necessity of conducting the upcoming elections without logistical disruptions took precedence. The Supreme Court’s decision stands as a significant victory for Republicans, affirming their right to pursue partisan objectives in redistricting as long as they do not explicitly subordinate traditional districting principles to racial considerations.

New text messages have surfaced exposing a proposed meeting between then-Vice President Joe Biden and a Chinese executive from CEFC China Energy. The House Ways and Means Committee, currently investigating Hunter Biden’s business dealings, released these texts, suggesting a deeper involvement of Joe Biden in his son’s overseas business affairs.

The text messages, uncovered by IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, reveal a planned meeting between Joe Biden and a top Chinese energy executive. The discovery challenges Joe Biden’s repeated claims that he was not involved in his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

“Can you meet this evening early,” Hunter Biden asked Yadong Liu, CEO of CEFC Global Strategic Holdings in a text on the evening of Dec. 12, 2017.

“My father will be in New York also and he wants me to attend the Sandy Hook memorial service with him and I would like him to meet you along with my uncle and then you and I can talk let me know if that works.”

“I’m sorry for the late notice I got off the red eye in Baltimore from LA and take a little nap before I got his message,” Hunter continued.

Yadong told Hunter “No problem” and asked to let him “know when and where to meet.”

These texts, part of a trove of messages between Hunter Biden and the Chinese executive, suggest that Joe Biden was not only aware of his son’s business dealings but potentially involved in the negotiations.

“I’m sitting here with my father,” Hunter Biden allegedly texted to a CEFC associate, “and we would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled.” The text, part of a trove of messages between Hunter Biden and the Chinese executive, Raymond Zhao, suggests that Joe Biden was not only aware of his son’s business dealings but potentially involved in the negotiations.
Ways and Means Committee

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) did not mince words in his statement: “Hunter Biden has shown once again he believes there are two systems of justice in this country – one for his family, and one for everyone else. Not only did Hunter Biden refuse to comply with his initial subpoena until threatened with criminal contempt, but he then came before Congress and lied.”

The Committee’s investigation highlights three major falsehoods in Hunter Biden’s testimony:

The Wrong Zhao Claim: During his deposition, Hunter claimed he mistakenly sent a message to the wrong Zhao. However, records show that he communicated with Raymond Zhao about financial commitments from CEFC. The message Hunter sent reads, “I’m sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled.” In the months following this message, $5 million flowed from CEFC affiliates to companies connected to Hunter and James Biden, Joe Biden’s brother.
Account Control Denial: Hunter denied having control over Rosemont Seneca Bohai or its bank accounts. Contrary to his sworn testimony, evidence shows Hunter Biden was the beneficial owner of the entity’s associated bank account, which received his salary from Burisma and other foreign wires. Documentation obtained by the Committee includes a signed statement from Hunter, asserting, “I, Robert Hunter Biden, hereby certify that I am the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC.”
Visa Assistance Denial: Hunter claimed he never assisted Burisma with visa issues. However, emails between Hunter, Devon Archer, and Ukrainian associates reveal his involvement. Archer wrote, “Hunter is checking with Miguel Aleman to see if he can provide cover to Kola on the visa.” This contradicts Hunter’s testimony where he asserted he’d “never pick up the phone and call anybody for a visa.”

Ways and Means Committee

In addition to exposing Hunter Biden’s falsehoods, the Committee’s release included communications that affirm the credibility of the IRS whistleblowers and provide further evidence of the Department of Justice’s obstruction of the IRS investigation into Hunter Biden.

Rubén Díaz Sr., a Democrat politician from New York who represented the city’s 18th district as a councilmember from 2018 through 2021, as well as the 32nd District in the New York senate from 2003 to 2017, endorsed former President Donald Trump during his historic rally in the Bronx on Thursday.

“I want to join you in having the Bronx great again,” Díaz told Trump in Crotona Park. “Please accept this democrat, this black Puerto Rican with a kinky hair and a broken English. Please accept my endorsement for you as president.”

The two then shared a firm handshake and embraced while the massive crowd cheered.

Elsewhere in his speech, Díaz mocked U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) over her radically off base predications for the rally. After telling reporters on Capitol Hill that she expects low turnout for the rally on Wednesday, she doubled down on Thursday morning when a massive rainstorm blew in.

While the storm was raging, AOC reacted to an X post in which a reporter predicted a washout for Trump’s event, saying “God is good.”

Unfortunately for the far-left congresswoman, the rain cleared up after about an hour, giving way to clear skies and warm weather.

“As a minister, president of the New York Hispanic clergy organization, I want to tell AOC… who wanted to become a prophet,” Díaz began, drawing laughs from the crowd.

“And she said, even God doesn’t want Trump in the Bronx because it’s going to rain. Madam prophet AOC, you have become a false prophet,” the lifelong Democrat continued as rallygoers cheered in approval.

After weeks of hinting at a potential rally in New York City, Trump made good on his word Thursday as he continues to be stuck in the city while dealing with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s dubious criminal case against him.

The former president received a hometown welcome from an energetic crowd made up of a mix of longtime supporters and New Yorkers open to considering a Republican.

“Hello, New York City, and hello to all of the incredible, tough, strong, hardworking American patriots right here in the Bronx. Who would think? Who would think? I’m thrilled to be back in the city I grew up in, the city I spent my life in, the city I helped build, and the city that we all love, New York City,” Trump told the crowd.

“And I’m here tonight to declare that we are going to turn New York City around and we are going to turn it around very, very quickly!”

The former president — who continues to lead President Biden in most national polls, as well as in swing states — was astonished to see that his rally filled up the entirety of the park, as well as a massive overflow crowd. Rallygoers lined up for several city blocks as far back as three hours ahead of the president’s remarks.

While a Republican presidential candidate has not carried New York since Ronald Reagan in 1984, Trump expressed a sliver of optimism that he could do so given Democrat failures in the state.

“Who said we’re not gonna winNew York?” Trump said at one point as the crowd belted out chants of “we love Trump!”

“We’re gonna win New York. If we can win New York, we win the whole thing. Wouldn’t that be nice?”

Former President Donald Trump managed to send MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough into a tailspin during Tuesday’s segment of “Morning Joe.” Trump’s statements about potential actions should he return to the Oval Office in 2024 left the liberal host Scarborough floundering for words.

“You’re actually going to support a guy that has promised you he’s going to be a dictator on day one?” Scarborough asked his viewers. “Do they not see that this guy is promising, he’s promising to be an authoritarian? He’s talking about, you know, getting elected again after 2024, and I just—we know who Trump is.”

Scarborough continued, “This isn’t about Trump. This is about those people who are deciding, instead of choosing democracy American democracy, they’re going to choose Donald Trump.”

In March, Scarborough had to retract a social media post that criticized Trump’s “bloodbath” comment following a correction from X founder Elon Musk.

WATCH:

As Democrats toss around grave accusations and dystopian predictions about Trump’s potential return to power, it’s becoming clearer that the extreme scenarios are being painted not out of genuine concern, but as a desperate attempt to sway public opinion by stoking fear.

While the opposition shrieks at shadows, Trump’s straightforward approach continues to resonate with a significant portion of the electorate who feel ignored by the current political scene.

Former President Donald Trump reacted with fury to news that the FBI authorized agents to use “deadly force” when executing the raid on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate.

“WOW! I just came out of the Biden Witch Hunt Trial in Manhattan, the ‘Icebox,’ and was shown Reports that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their Illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE. NOW WE KNOW, FOR SURE, THAT JOE BIDEN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY. HE IS MENTALLY UNFIT TO HOLD OFFICE — 25TH AMENDMENT!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Tuesday evening.

The raid — which saw heavily armed FBI agents storm the former president’s estate — was authorized by Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland and then-FBI D.C. field office chief Steven D’Antuono.

New documents revealed that agents were authorized to use “deadly force” if necessary when raiding the former president’s estate. The authorization came as part of the operation to recover classified materials allegedly retained unlawfully by Trump after his presidency. Documents suggest preparedness for potentially violent confrontations, including scenarios involving Trump’s security detail, which consists of former Secret Service personnel.

Agents were also going door-to-door confronting Mar-A-Lago guests and picking locks.

The documents suggested that agents were expecting resistance from the Secret Service and were prepared to kill them if necessary. Agents even brought a medical professional who specializes in trauma wounds to assist if with any potential gunshot wounds.

“The FBI risked the lives of Donald Trump, his family, his staff, and MAL guests for a publicity stunt to make it look like Trump stole national security files,” said veteran reporter Julie Kelly. “People need to be arrested for this.”

Conservative legal scholar Mark Levin believes there’s an argument to be made for why Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should be disbarred in New York over his handling of Michael Cohen’s testimony.

Appearing on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program late last week, Levin explained that the Democratic prosecutor may be found guilty of violating the federal Brady rule which requires the government to produce all “exculpatory evidence” that will be germane to proceedings. In Cohen’s case, Levin contends, Bragg failed to provide Trump’s attorneys with a mountain of evidence about how unreliable their witness was with his past words.

“Sean, it’s my opening argument on why Alvin Bragg should be disbarred, why he should be facing a — charges for suborning perjury which I’ve talked about on my radio show for the last three days, and also why he’s in violation of the Brady [Rule],” Levin told Hannity when the host asked him what his closing argument would be in the case, according to the American Tribune.

He continued, “We have very smart lawyers, some fairly smart lawyers who are talking about this case. They’re all saying the same thing in a different way because the case is so outrageous, we’re running out of words and explanations for it. None of us have ever seen anything like this. You have collateral evidence which is unconstitutional, you have somebody being charged and he’s not sure what he’s charged with which is unconstitutional. You have all kinds of allegations being made which are absolutely outrageous, not relevant. You have a dead state statute that remains dead today that’s being used. You have a federal campaign law and nobody knows exactly what part of the federal campaign law we’re talking about. And so, I want to talk about Alvin Bragg rather than keep talking about the same thing.”

WATCH:

In the 1963 Brady v. Maryland case, the Supreme Court ruled that the “prosecutor must not withhold exculpatory evidence, must be given to the defense and in fact, if they know that evidence is false or might be false, they’re not supposed to use it,” Levin explained. If prosecutors know “that there is materially false information that [Cohen] may give or any lawyer for that, they are not to present that person.”

“Now, exculpatory evidence, the Supreme Court says, well, we have exculpatory evidence. Robert — has been here — Costello — on all these shows, look, he’s not Stormy Daniels. This guy is the former deputy chief of the criminal division of the Southern District of New York, does it get any higher than that? And he was Cohen’s lawyer for a critical period of time, and he’s been on my show, Saturday, he’s been on other shows, he was on a show this morning, he testified before Congress under oath, and he said, look, this guy’s a liar, I was his lawyer, I have 300 emails, I have contemporaneous information, I’m telling you he’s a liar, on top of all the other lies the guy has told. And nobody wants this guy as a witness. That’s why the U.S. attorney’s office didn’t want him. That’s why Vance didn’t want him. That’s why Bragg initially didn’t want him.”

By vouching for the veracity of Cohen’s testimony, Bragg has opened himself up to allegations that he failed to inform the jury about just how extensive Cohen’s past lies were, Levin concluded.

“So when that government witness is on the stand, that means the district attorney and the government are vouching for the truth, the integrity, for the testimony of that witness and that witness was put up there despite the fact that the government knew from these emails of Mr. Costello’s testimony that he’s a liar,” he said. Whether or not the case gets tossed on a Brady violation, the jury could still find that Cohen is materially damaged as a witness with an axe to grind against his former boss.

“Bragg put Cohen on the stand after obviously they worked with him. They knew what he was going to say. Any prosecutor does that, they let them know what kind of questions are going to ask in other words part of this is performance art. Bragg knew that there were material matters that implicated Cohen. He was aware of it, information, contemporary emails, Mr. Costello’s testimony among others. That’s directly contradicted what his own attorney said and what others have said, and he still put him on that stand and this is material information, this is their key witness. Look at the texts, we still don’t know about the texts. Well, that’s an important issue, too. Did this government not have his texts? If they had the text, did they give it to the defense? How did the defense get the texts?”