In New York, Judge Juan Merchan scheduled Trump’s sentencing for Friday — a decision Trump is urging the Supreme Court to block. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is pushing to release special counsel Jack Smith’s final report following Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling blocking its release.

“There is no question that Merrick Garland is going to release Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report, quite possibly for the same reason that Judge Juan Merchan is going to sentence President-Elect Trump this Friday — to get in a last-minute dig just before Trump’s inauguration,” John Malcolm, vice president of the Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Malcolm noted it remains an “open question” whether Smith has authority to write the report after Cannon found his appointment unconstitutional.

The DOJ indicated in a filing Wednesday that the first part of Smith’s report concerning the 2020 election investigation would be released, noting it is “in furtherance of the public interest in informing a co-equal branch and the public regarding this significant matter.”

Smith already handed off his entire report, which consists of two volumes, to Attorney General Merrick Garland, according to a filing at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Garland determined he would not release volume two of the report, which focuses on Trump’s classified documents case, while proceedings for Trump’s co-defendants are ongoing.

Both of Smith’s cases against Trump were dismissed after he won the election, though the DOJ did not drop charges against Trump’s co-defendants in the classified documents case.

Cannon blocked the DOJ on Tuesday from releasing Smith’s report until the Eleventh Circuit issues a ruling.

Trump, who is no longer directly a party to the case, filed an amicus brief Wednesday arguing that Garland “cannot issue a report of an unconstitutionally appointed and funded Special Counsel.” Releasing the final report now would also violate the Presidential Transition Act, his attorneys wrote in the brief.

“In sum, public release of the Final Report threatens the same, if not more, stigma and opprobrium as an indictment and, thus, represents an equal, if not greater, infringement on the exercise of the executive power, and completely disregards Congress’s intent in the Presidential Transition Act,” the brief explains.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky told the DCNF that “transparency is vital, but it must not come at the cost of justice or constitutional order.”

“In light of the unique national interests at stake, including the ongoing presidential transition and the need to restore public confidence, the Attorney General should exercise prudence and defer any release until a proper review is conducted by the incoming administration,” he told the DCNF.

Cherkasky said he is also concerned about “the emergency nature of rushing a complex and novel legal issue.”

“There is no pulling back the report once it is released, and to do so before the court, and appellate courts are able to weigh in with due time and consideration is shortsighted and obviously political given the few days AG Garland has before he leaves his post,” he said. ‘This is lawfare of the highest order in cases that have been dismissed. It is outrageous to think Smith didn’t seek to release this report while the cases were pending (prosecutors rarely would release such because it gives away their strategy).”

Fromer AG Meese & Professor Calabresi file amicus in Trump's petition to Supreme Court for Stay. Denying stay just got that much harder.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) January 9, 2025

‘One County Prosecutor’

If Trump wants to avoid a sentencing hearing in New York set for 9:30 a.m. EST on Friday, the Supreme Court will likely need to rule on Thursday, after his other effort to block the hearing was shot down by a judge on New York’s highest court.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg urged the justices Thursday to let the hearing proceed, writing there is “no basis” for taking the “extraordinary step of intervening in a pending state criminal trial.”

“It is axiomatic that there is only one President at a time,” Bragg’s brief states. “Non employees of the government do not exercise any official function that would be impaired by the conclusion of a criminal case against a private citizen for private conduct.”

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and Northwestern law professor Steven G. Calabresi wrote in an amicus brief that it is “intolerable that one county prosecutor in one State could besmirch a President’s reputation and reduce his effectiveness in carrying out his extensive duties at this time.”

“Today, moreover, there are fifty states with roughly 2,300 county prosecutors, some of them quite partisan,” they wrote. “This Court should not allow such a prosecutor to impair the President’s or congressionally certified President-Elect’s ability to perform his
duties.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

“The American People have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax, which will continue to be appealed,” Trump communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We look forward to uniting our country in the new administration as President Trump makes America great again.”

The three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Trump’s request for a new trial on Monday. The court rejected his claim that the judge should not have allowed evidence like the “Access Hollywood” tape suggesting Trump committed other sexual assaults.

“On review for abuse of discretion, we conclude that Mr. Trump has not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings,” the court held. “Further, he has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial.”

BREAKING: Federal appeals court in New York has upheld the E. Jean Carroll verdict against Donald Trump. https://t.co/rGR9PW45sk pic.twitter.com/cbMAMQFTgq

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 30, 2024

Trump can now appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or the full Second Circuit.

A New York jury found Trump liable in May 2023 for sexual battery and defamation against Carroll, who accused him of raping her in Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1996.

Trump is still appealing an additional $83.3 million in damages awarded to Carroll by a jury for another defamation claim.

ABC News and its host George Stephanopoulos agreed to a $15 million settlement earlier this month after Trump sued for defamation. Stephanopoulos claimed Trump was “found liable for rape by a jury,” though the jury only found him liable for sexual abuse.

The Supreme Court has ruled on several cases relating to Trump in the past year.

In July, the majority found that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts taken in office after Trump moved to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment based on presidential immunity. The justices also held in March that Trump could not be removed from Colorado’s 2024 election ballot.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

The Trump administration will need to address everything from agency hiring practices and internal trainings to grant funding decisions, legal experts and DEI opponents told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Gail Heriot, law professor at the University of San Diego, told the DCNF that the Trump administration needs to begin by “withdrawing Biden’s executive orders embedding DEI in every nook and cranny of the executive branch of government.”

President Joe Biden’s day one executive order established a “whole-of-government equity agenda,” directing every agency to conduct an equity assessment. His June 2021 executive order on DEI in the federal workforce required agencies to implement training programs for employees informing them about systemic racism and implement DEI principles into hiring and promotion practices.

Trump can also reinstate his Sept. 2020 executive order, which was reversed by Biden, “combatting race and sex stereotyping.”

The ideas promoted through DEI trainings “may be fashionable in the academy, but they have no place in programs and activities supported by Federal taxpayer dollars,” the order stated.

Another early target could be ending DEI employment policies within federal agencies. DEI opponents also argue Trump needs to cut programs and grants that doll out funds based on identity.

“First and foremost the Trump administration needs to use its power over federal agencies and programs to enforce existing rules against discrimination in funding, grants, and contracting,” William Jacobson, Cornell Law School professor and founder of the Equal Protection Project, told the DCNF. “Many of the DEI practices violate the anti-discrimination laws and rules already on the books.”

Some programs, such as those run by the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), have already encountered legal roadblocks as a result of lawsuits filed by conservative groups. A federal judge held in March that the MBDA’s mission to help minority-owned businesses access capital and government contracts was unconstitutional, writing it cannot vet applicants “based on race.”

A recent report released by Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz revealed more than ten percent of grant spending by the National Science Foundation (NSF) during the Biden-Harris administration went towards research projects that promote DEI.

DEI: President Trump’s new Secretary of Education is going to be busy. By threatening to withhold accreditation and student loan funding the administration could eliminate DEI and racist admissions policies in US colleges. The process will take a minimum of eight months if there… pic.twitter.com/7NA2xaMVvv

— @amuse (@amuse) November 11, 2024

Going On Offense

While rooting out internal DEI programs, the Trump administration could also target similar programs in education and corporate America.

“While the Trump administration considers the elimination or reorganization of the Department of Education, it should insist that DoE’s Office for Civil Rights act on complaints of DEI discrimination promptly and forcefully,” Jacobson said. “Our Equal Protection Project (EPP, EqualProtect.org) has filed approximately 50 OCR complaints against colleges and universities in the past 18 months, but OCR has been slow to act in many cases.”

Since the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in higher education last year, the EPP has filed complaints against universities for tuition reduction programs, scholarships and fellowships that include race in their eligibility criteria.

The DOJ’s Office of Civil Rights should target “schools, employers, and nonprofit programs that give resources on the basis of race,” GianCarlo Canaparo, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told the DCNF.

“Much good can be done by suing high-profile targets, but small targets should be sued too because there are more of them, and the signaling effect that ‘you’re not too small to escape anti-discrimination law’ will be powerful,” he said.

Under Biden, the OCR has sued police and fire departments over hiring standards it deemed discriminatory due to the outcome. Maryland’s police department agreed to an over $2 million settlement after females performed worse than men on the physical test and black applicants passed the written test at a lower rate than white applicants.

Congressional Action

The most lasting changes must be made by Congress.

“At some point in the future, Democrats are going to control all those agencies again, and if these tools are on the table, they’re going to use them,” Canaparo said.

Canaparo said Congress should repeal the law he argues helped create DEI: the 1991 Amendment to Title VII.

The amendment makes implementing policies that have a disparate impact on minorities illegal, even if the policy is neutral on its face.

DEI policies in our federal government have led to divisive, wasteful programs that undermine merit and fairness—principles Americans have fought for over generations.

The Dismantle DEI Act will restore accountability by eliminating DEI offices, removing mandates on federal… pic.twitter.com/0oIlhmL2iT

— Congressman Michael Cloud (@RepCloudTX) November 20, 2024

Heriot argued Congress must remove incentives colleges and universities have to offer race-based preferences, such as stripping accreditors of their authority to dictate the racial composition of student bodies and ending federal programs that fund institutions with higher percentages of minorities.

Colleges have attempted to circumvent the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling by considering “adversity” scores or implementing admission essay questions about aspects of potential students’ “identity.”

In June, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance introduced the “Dismantle DEI Act of 2024” with Rep. Michael Cloud, which would eliminate all federal DEI programs and prohibit federal grant funding and contracts from promoting DEI. The legislation passed out of the House Oversight Committee on Thursday.

“If Trump is successful in his campaign to end woke discrimination, he’ll go down in history as one of the greatest presidents for the promise of racial neutrality in America,” Canaparo said.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Trump’s sentencing will no longer take place as scheduled on Nov. 26, according to Merchan’s order.

In a filing Tuesday, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg suggested delaying the remaining proceedings until after Trump’s term ends in 2029.

“The People deeply respect the Office of the President, are mindful of the demands and obligations of the presidency and acknowledge that Defendant’s inauguration will raise unprecedented legal questions,” prosecutors wrote. “We also deeply respect the fundamental role of the jury in our constitutional system.”

BREAKING Trump’s sentencing in the NY case has been indefinitely postponed by Judge Merchan. pic.twitter.com/o6xdkDjBfL

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 22, 2024

Trump’s defense attorneys argued that the case must be immediately dismissed “in order to facilitate the orderly transition of executive power following President Trump’s overwhelming victory in the 2024 Presidential election.”

Merchan set a Dec. 2 deadline for the defense to file its motion to dismiss the case and instructed prosecutors to file their response by Dec. 9.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Americans “overwhelmingly rejected the ideological takeover of political and civic life by narrow-minded identity politics” in the Nov. 5 election, a coalition of 38 financial officers wrote in letters warning companies that the new administration will “hasten the demise of DEI.”

“You stand at an important crossroads,” the letter states. “Either you can heed the voice of the American people—your shareholders, customers, and employees—or you can bow to fringe activists who demand that you double down on a failing ideology.”

Companies scored on the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Viewpoint Diversity index, along with Fortune 1000 companies not scored, received letters from the investor advisor coalition.

ADF’s 2024 Viewpoint Diversity index revealed that 91 percent of companies scored use critical race theory in their training materials for employees. The index measured the 85 biggest technology and finance companies on their respect for free speech and religious freedom.

Jeremy Tedesco, senior vice president of corporate engagement for Alliance Defending Freedom, told the Daily Caller News Foundation it’s clear that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is already “on its way out.”

“What the Trump administration does could really speed up that process, which will ultimately be good for those corporations, for their workforce, for the broader society, because DEI is a toxic ideology that harms everybody it comes into contact with,” he said.

Some companies have already changed DEI policies as a result of pressure from consumers and shareholders, ending their participation in the left-wing Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and abandoning diversity initiatives, Tedesco noted. Under pressure from conservative activist Robby Starbuck, companies like Lowe’s and Tractor Supply Co backtracked on DEI policies, including sponsoring LGBTQ pride parades.

Companies began rolling back their DEI programs after the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action in higher education in 2023 and conservatives increased their focus on specifically targeting corporations with legal challenges.

“While we urge you to distance yourself from DEI and highly divisive groups like the Human Rights Campaign—which bullies companies into adopting radical, wrong-headed, and reputationally disastrous policies—we also want to caution you against retracting your goal of protecting the civil liberties and dignity of all employees,” the letter continues. “As fiduciaries of your companies, we manage over $16 billion in assets, and we represent working Americans who depend on us to safeguard their financial future, retirement planning, and more. You owe these investors transparency and, when necessary, proactive changes that are in their best financial interests to serve and foster a healthy civil society.”

Inspire Investing director of corporate engagement Tim Schwarzenberger, whose company signed onto the letters, said shareholders “expect those in the c-suite to deliver positive financial results that meet customer demand and contribute to a healthy, civil society.”

“That’s not too much to ask,” Schwarzenberger said in a statement to the DCNF. “For too long, however, corporate leaders have been bullied into taking increasingly extreme positions on hot-button cultural issues and implementing harmful DEI policies that divide up the workforce and society itself.”

Dr. OJ Oleka, Chief Executive Officer of the State Financial Officers Foundation, said public employees “like teachers, law enforcement officers, and fire fighters rely on state financial officers to make and recommend sound fiduciary decisions to secure their financial future.”

“I know this firsthand, as my mother is the beneficiary of my late father’s public pension from his career as a public university professor,” he said in a statement. “My mother deserves the promise of my late father’s pension, and so does everyone else who worked hard to earn one. The DEI regime does not deliver on that promise.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

States such as Texas, which have taken steps to limit the surge of illegal migrants — reaching record levels under the Biden administration — are now facing lawsuits from the federal government. Similarly, states that passed laws contradicting the Biden administration’s positions on issues like abortion and gender have faced lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the bills.

The amount of lawsuits the Biden administration has filed is “unprecedented,” Hans​​​​ von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“And all of them are examples of the DOJ abusing its law enforcement power and infringing on federalism by going after the states,” he said.

The DOJ sued Virginia on Friday over an initiative intended to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls “too close” to the election. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin called it a “desperate attempt to attack the legitimacy” of the state’s elections.

“With less than 30 days until the election, the Biden-Harris Department of Justice is filing an unprecedented lawsuit against me and the Commonwealth of Virginia, for appropriately enforcing a 2006 law signed by Democrat Tim Kaine that requires Virginia to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls — a process that starts with someone declaring themselves a non-citizen and then registering to vote,” Youngkin said in a statement.

The administration likewise targeted Alabama over an effort to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls. Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, who announced in August that 3,251 registered voters had been issued noncitizen identification numbers by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), noted the federal government repeatedly denied requests for a list of noncitizens residing in the state.

When the state decided to tackle the issue itself, it was promptly hit with a lawsuit. Removing voters from the state registration list within 90 days of an election violates federal law, the DOJ argued.

The Biden-Harris DOJ has launched an unprecedented assault against American voters.

Just days before the election, they have sued the States of Alabama and Virginia to keep illegal aliens on the voter rolls.

Every single American should be outraged. pic.twitter.com/kuzX1RNcDd

— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) October 12, 2024

Other election litigation include the DOJ’s lawsuits against Arizona in July 2022 over a proof of citizenship voting law and Georgia in June 2021 over an election integrity law.

The Supreme Court allowed Arizona to partially enforce its law in August after the Republican National Committee (RNC) intervened in a separate lawsuit brought by a left-wing activist groups. While the high court rejected a ban on casting ballots for president without proof of citizenship, the majority allowed Arizona to reject state voter registration forms that lack it.

In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger suggested the DOJ may have coordinated with activists on the case, requesting documents related to the Department’s decision.

“Given that it is a felony under federal law for an alien to register or vote, DOJ should be applauding the states trying to do something about this problem and helping the states defend lawsuits filed against them instead of suing the states,” von Spakovsky told the DCNF, noting the same is true in the immigration space. “The federal government needs the assistance and help of state governments and state law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws and stop the unlawful flood of illegal aliens coming into the country.”

The Biden DOJ has also taken aggressive action against states attempting to crack down on illegal immigration.

It sued Texas in January over a state law that empowers local authorities to arrest migrants who enter illegally, followed by suing Iowa and Oklahoma in May over similar laws.

In 2012, the Supreme Court held that an Arizona law making it a crime to be in the state without authorization was preempted by federal law.

“There was very little chance of Oklahoma or Texas being successful without overturning Arizona v. US, and maybe that is their objective, but it is hardly improper for the federal government to enforce what the Supreme Court has said are unconstitutional laws infringing on the power of the federal government (however much I disagree with the opinion in Arizona v. United States),” Competitive Enterprise Institute attorney Devin Watkins told the DCNF. “The Supreme Court refused to block the Texas statute on an emergency basis, suggesting that it is at least possible that the Supreme Court may overturn Arizona v. US on appeal.”

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador accused the Biden administration of ignoring states’ rights when the DOJ brought a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s abortion ban to the Supreme Court.

The administration sued shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, alleging Idaho’s Defense of Life Act prevents doctors from performing abortions in emergency circumstances as they claim is required under federal law. The Supreme Court reinstated limits on the law in June, sending the case back to the lower court without deciding whether the statute conflicted with federal law.

Currently, the DOJ is fighting Tennessee’s ban on child sex change procedures for minors at the Supreme Court.

South Texas College of Law Houston professor Josh Blackman told the DCNF it looks like the Biden DOJ is “trying to initiate as many lawsuits as possible before the election.”

“If Trump wins, it will be hard for [the] DOJ to terminate pending cases,” Blackman said. “It is also possible private groups can move to intervene to keep the cases alive.”

Watkins disagreed that the Biden administration has pursued more litigation than usual, noting lawsuits over voting issues are “actually quite common due to the federal election issues at stake.”

“Overall, I don’t believe that the federal government appears to be filing lawsuits against states any more often during this administration than in previous administrations,” he said. “Some of this litigation could infringe on states’ rights if successful, and in many cases, the federal government should lose, but this litigation isn’t unusual.”

During the Trump administration, the government sued California for a cap and trade agreement with Quebec. It also sued California, New Jersey and King County, Washington, over sanctuary city policies.

“The Trump administration did other things to put pressure on states to change their laws, like the DHS’s suspension of NY’s access to the Global Entry program, or threatening federal payments to local jurisdictions,” Watkins added.

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.

Featured Image: Screen Capture/CSPAN

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

The Colorado Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit against Phillips after finding the attorney who challenged him in 2017 for declining to create a cake celebrating a male-to-female gender transition did not properly file the case.

“Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It’s time to leave him alone,” ADF senior counsel Jake Warner said in a statement. “Free speech is for everyone.”

The attorney, Autumn Scardina, called Masterpiece Cakeshop to request a “a pink birthday cake with blue frosting” symbolizing gender transition on the same day the Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips first case in June 2017.

Scardina initially filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. After the state and Phillips reached a settlement and the case was closed, Scardina filed a new lawsuit in state court in 2019.

The court held Tuesday that Scardina should have appealed the commission’s decision to close the case rather than bringing a new claim under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).

BREAKING The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop

Today, the CO Supreme Court dismissed Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina because an attorney harassing Jack did not follow the correct process in suing Jack.

This win ends 12+ years of… pic.twitter.com/QKwwmHlDYV

— Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) October 8, 2024

“None of the circumstances that permit an action in the district court occurred here,” the Colorado Supreme Court held. “We therefore vacate both the division’s and the district court’s orders and dismiss this case. In so doing, we express no opinion about the merits of Scardina’s claims, and nothing about today’s holding alters the protections afforded by CADA.”

John McHugh, Scardina’s attorney, told The Associated Press the Colorado Supreme Court “decided to avoid the merits of this issue by inventing an argument no party raised.”

The Supreme Court sided with Phillips in 2018, finding the commission applied CADA in a hostile manner when it found him in violation for declining to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. In June 2023, the Supreme Court also sided with Christian web designer Lorie Smith, finding Colorado cannot compel her to create websites for same-sex weddings in violation of her religious beliefs.

“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

Ryan Routh, who faces two gun charges after allegedly attempting to assassinate the former president on Sept. 15 at his West Palm Beach, Florida, golf club, penned a note telling “the world” that he would offer $150,000 to anyone who could “complete” the job, according to court records. Prosecutors wrote that law enforcement was contacted by a witness on Wednesday who said Routh had dropped off a box at his residence including various letters, along with “ammunition, a metal pipe, miscellaneous building materials, tools, four phones,” several months before the assassination attempt.

“Dear World, this was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I am so sorry I failed you,” the letter states. “I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster.”

JUST IN – Letter by Trump gunman Ryan Routh released by DOJ: "I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you now to finish the job; and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job." pic.twitter.com/j2NsPQuNeA

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 23, 2024

“Everyone across the globe from the youngest to the oldest know that Trump is unfit to be anything, much less a US president,” the letter continues.

The letter goes on to note that Trump “ended relations with Iran like a child and now the Middle East has unraveled,” according to prosecutors.

The witness opened the box left by Routh after learning of the attempted assassination on Sept. 15, the filing states.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

During a segment of “CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip” on Aug. 15, Dyson, a Vanderbilt University professor, had ripped into the lawmaker over her pronunciation of Vice President Kamala Harris’s first name. At the House Oversight and Accountability Committee’s hearing Thursday, Mace criticized Democrats for their outrage over mispronouncing Vice President Kamala Harris’ name, citing party figures who have been reported to have done so.

“My colleagues across the aisle said that those that can not pronounce Kamala’s name correctly are elementary aged children. I would like to enter into the record an article by Newsweek saying Bill Clinton pronounces Kamala Harris name wrong during [his] DNC speech,” Mace said.

“Bill Clinton along with Al Sharpton, rapper Lil John — let’s not forget that Joe Biden can’t say her name right, neither can Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor,” Mace continued. “And this morning on ‘Morning Joe,’ Joan Baez called her a camel. So I don’t want to hear it. It’s fake outrage.”

The lawmaker then continued as she held up alleged screenshots of text messages sent to her from Dyson, stating he had called her “gorgeous” after claiming she parroted white supremacist language.

[…]

— Read More: dailycallernewsfoundation.org

His attorneys urged Judge Tanya Chutkan, who set a schedule allowing prosecutors to file the first brief on presidential immunity Sept. 26, to reconsider her decision. Without addressing ongoing evidence issues, Smith’s filing would “amount to an improper motion for summary judgment in the court of public opinion” ahead of the election, they argued.

Trump’s attorneys noted there are “ongoing discovery violations in this case that implicate Presidential immunity and other strong defenses, including the Office’s failure to produce exculpatory evidence concerning the flaws with this prosecution and the Office’s false allegations.” They said prosecutors conducted their evidence review at a time when they “wholly denied the existence of Presidential immunity,” […]

— Read More: thelibertydaily.com