Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
The Supreme Court will not get involved.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to revive Michael Cohen’s lawsuit seeking damages for retaliation during his prison sentence.
Cohen’s lawsuit comes after the former Trump “fixer” began serving his sentence for federal election finance crimes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Due to health reasons that would be exacerbated by the virus, Cohen’s prison term was furloughed, and he was temporarily sent to home confinement.
Officials later ordered him back to prison after he raised issue with a release condition asking him to waive his ability to criticize then-President Trump
A federal judge ruled to release Cohen again and said the former president’s ex-fixer suffered unconstitutional retaliation for wanting to critique Trump on social media and in a book. However, the judge later dismissed Cohen’s claim for damages over the incident.
“As it stands, this case represents the principle that presidents and their subordinates can lock away critics of the executive without consequence,” Cohen wrote in his request for the justices to hear his case.
Trump attorney Alina Habba said in the former president’s brief to the court that Cohen’s complaint is “entirely devoid of merit.” She also added a question over whether Cohen’s claim is barred by presidential immunity, which the justices declined to weigh.
Cohen testified as a star witness in the Manhattan district attorney’s criminal case against his former boss, which ended in a conviction in May, and took the stand in an earlier civil fraud trial against Trump and his business.
In a previous interview with The Hill, Cohen said his appeal to the justices was about deterrence. His experience, he said, was “merely a practice run” for the sweeping retribution Trump has vowed in a potential second term.
“Donald has opened up a Pandora’s box for future Trump 2.0s acting in the same autocratic manner,” Cohen said. “This writ of certiorari will be part of the process that would prevent any other U.S. citizen ever from being imprisoned because they refused to waive their First Amendment right or because they express criticism.”
The type of relief Cohen sought against Trump, various officials involved and the federal government itself for violating his constitutional rights is known as a Bivens claim. Over the past 44 years, the Supreme Court has turned away a dozen such lawsuits – making the ex-fixer’s request an uphill fight.
This is a breaking news story. Click refresh for the latest updates.
Former Navy SEAL officer Tim Sheehy launched a Senate bid in Montana on Tuesday.
“I’ve proudly fought for our country to defend our freedoms, and I’m once again answering the call to serve,” Sheehy, a Republican, said in a statement. “I will fight to bring real leadership to Washington to save our country and protect our Montana way of life.”
Sheehy, who serves as CEO of Bridger Aerospace, accused Tester of having “lost sight of our Montana values.”
“Like any good politician, Jon talks one way but votes another,” Sheehy said. “Montanans have had enough of these career politicians who are full of empty promises and are not representing our Montana values. It’s time for a new generation of leadership to rebuild America.”
The former Navy SEAL officer has received the endorsement of fellow Montanan and head of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.). Sheehy’s announcement marks the first Republican to jump into the race, potentially teeing up a fight against incumbent Sen. Jon Tester.
Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) threw his support behind former Navy SEAL officer Tim Sheehy on Thursday in the race to take on Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) next year.
“Tim Sheehy is a good friend, and I’m glad he decided to run for the U.S. Senate. Tim’s business experience and commitment to public service is what we need in Washington,” Gianforte said in a statement shared by Sheehy’s campaign.
“I know Tim Sheehy will serve Montana well in the U.S. Senate, and he has my full support,” he added.
While questions are still swirling over which party will control Congress and if the results will impact Donald Trump’s upcoming announcement a senior adviser says Americans should “buckle up” for next Tuesday.
The adviser claimed that members of the media have “all moved in unison against Donald Trump at their own peril” after the GOP experienced less than stellar results from the midterm elections, according to NBC News.
“It’s like they want to recreate 2015-2016,” the adviser said. “Let them. We are doing it again. Buckle up.”
Invites for Trump’s announcement should go out today.
On Election Day eve, Trump teased a “big announcement” coming on November 15th and many people anticipate him to formally announce his third presidential campaign.
However, while a Republican red tsunami was expected to sweep the midterm elections the results thus far have been disappointing as the GOP has yet to officially win a majority in either chamber. Some conservatives have blamed Trump’s interference as a major factor behind the lackluster results and have expressed hopes he will reconsider his announcement.
Former House Speaker for the GOP, Newt Gingrich, stated on Wednesday that he believes Trump might be reconsidering his plans for 2024.
“I mean, just in my own emails today, [with] the number of people who want somebody other than Trump who have decided, literally overnight, that person is going to be DeSantis, he’s going to find it almost impossible to avoid running,” Gingrich toldJust the News. “I think Trump’s got to look at the results and be troubled.”
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) has finally made an endorsement in the 2025 presidential race.
Youngkin’s endorsement comes after former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley dropped out of the race earlier in the day, leading the Republican National Committee to declare that Trump was the party’s presumptive nominee.
“Voters in the Commonwealth and across the country have spoken loudly for President Donald J. Trump and I endorse him for President of the United States,” Youngkin said in a statement. “His record on border security, restoring American leadership around the world, reducing taxes and lowering the cost of living for all Americans stands in stark contrast to the open borders, failed leadership on the global stage, rampant inflation and higher costs of today.”
“It’s time to unite around strong leadership and policies that grow our great nation, not four more years of President Biden,” Youngkin added.
It’s time to unite around strong leadership and policies that grow our great nation, not four more years of President Biden. pic.twitter.com/jnF1iFVRkk
Trump came close to officially clinching the nomination as he now stands at well over 1,000 delegates and he needs less than 200 to hit the 1,215 threshold to officially win. In Virginia, Trump beat Haley by 28 points.
Nikki Haley has yet to endorse Trump for the nomination.
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
These are shocking words for RINO Romney…
On Wednesday, the Utah Senator and avid Trump critic said that President Joe Biden made a huge mistake by not immediately pardoning former President Donald Trump.
During a discussion with MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle about Trump’s ongoing hush money trial in New York, Romney said, “I think President Biden made an enormous error. He should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward. It was a win-win for Donald Trump.”
After Ruhle questioned, “Is that Joe Biden’s job?” Romney replied, “I’ve been around for a while. If LBJ had been president and he didn’t want something like this to happen, he’d have been all over that prosecutor saying, ‘You better not bring that forward or I’m gonna drive you out of office.’”
“But I’m pretty sure you support having separate but equal branches of government,” said Ruhle.
“I do,” replied Romney, before adding:
Had I been President Biden when the Justice Department brought an indictment, I would have immediately pardoned him. I’d have pardoned President Trump. Why? Because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardoned the little guy. And number two, it’s not gonna get resolved before the election, it’s not gonna have an impact before the election, and frankly the country doesn’t want to have to go through prosecuting a former president.
I think the American people have recognized that President Trump did have an inappropriate affair with someone who is a porn star. I think they realize that. I think they realize that he took classified documents he shouldn’t have and didn’t handle them properly. I think they understand that as well. I think they realize that he’s been lying about the election in 2020. They know those things, so these things are not changing the public attitude, and frankly we ought to get beyond these and focus on the big issues that really matter to the American people: our inflation, our border, what’s happening around the world.
Former Vice president Mike Pence has announced his support for a Republican Congressman who voted to impeach former President Trump over his alleged role in the 2021 Jan. 6th riot.
California Republican David Valadao, who voted to impeach Trump along with nine other House Republicans represents the 21st Congressional District and is running against Democratic challenger Rudy Salas for control over the newly drawn 22nd Congressional District.
Pence is set to headline a campaign fundraiser for Valadao in Fresno, California according to The Washington Examiner.
The former vice president has been outspoken against several Trump-backed candidates, particularly those who continue to deny the results of the 2020 election, such as Arizona’s GOP candidate for governor, Kari Lake. Pence had supported candidate Karrin Taylor Robson, whom Lake beat in the primary. He said in July that Lake wanted to make the 2022 election about the past.
“So, let me say, when you get out and vote for Karrin Taylor Robson and this Republican team, you can say yes to a future of freedom for Arizona,” he said that month.
On Sept. 14, Arizona Republican secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem accused Pence of attempting to organize a “coup” against Trump after Pence certified the 2020 election results. Finchem will compete against Democratic nominee Adrian Fontes in November. If he loses, he vowed not to concede.
Pence has been speculated as an early contender for the 2024 presidency but the former Vice President has reaffirmed his sole focus is helping Republicans succeed in this year’s midterms. However, his travels to high-profile early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire along with his refusal to rule out a potential campaign have many Americans curious.
“I can honestly tell you in 2023, my family and I will do what we have always done. We’ll reflect, we’ll pray and determine where we might best serve, and we’ll go where we’re called,” Pence told a CNN reporter at the time
On a recent episode of Tim Miller’s podcast, a prominent liberal columnist revealed that, behind closed doors, senior Democrats don’t view Donald Trump as an existential threat to democracy. The revelation contrasts sharply with the often apocalyptic rhetoric about Trump unthinkingly regurgitated by liberals.
Ezra Klein’s Insight
New York Times columnist Ezra Klein shared what he’s heard from top Democrats on Capitol Hill. According to Klein, these leaders privately express deep concern about President Biden’s situation while downplaying the potential dangers of a Trump victory.
“People are weighing this set of things. Like, ‘It would be quite unpleasant for me personally to come out against the president as an elected official in the Democratic Party,’ and weighing what will happen if Donald Trump wins, and saying, in a revealed preference way, ‘I can live with Donald Trump winning,’” Klein stated.
Tim Miller’s Reaction
Miller, known for his strong opposition to Trump, responded with disbelief. “Really?” he exclaimed, clearly taken aback by Klein’s account. Klein elaborated, saying he’s heard top Democrats question why their peers act as though Trump is an existential threat while they themselves do not believe this.
Ethical Journalism and Source Protection
At one point, Miller’s frustration boiled over. “Who the f**k is this?” he demanded. “Out your sources, Ezra!” The angry comments overlooked the fact that journalistic ethics prohibit revealing sources. Protecting confidential sources ensures the free flow of information and encourages insiders to share sensitive insights without fear of repercussions.
Despite Miller’s intense reaction, Klein remained composed. “I find it maddening, but I do find it consistent,” he said. He suggested that whatever Democrats say publicly, their private resignation contradicts their public statements.
Miller’s Fiery Response
Miller, still fuming, responded, “You have a calm voice, but you’re skyrocketing my f**king blood pressure right now. Ezra, I’m just, like, so f**king mad.”
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
MSNBC host and NBC News senior Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson repeatedly asked Vice President Kamala Harris if she would consider pardoning former President Donald Trump if he is found guilty — the VP’s face said as much as or more than what she was willing to say outright.
Vice President Harris sat for a one-on-one interview with Jackson on Tuesday night’s edition of NBC Nightly News, during which Harris tried to parry the pardon question by resisting “hypotheticals” — then shot the question down a second time.
"Let me tell you what's gonna help us move on: I get elected president of the United States" — Hallie Jackson asks Kamala Harris if she would considering pardoning Trump but Harris isn't having any of that nonsense pic.twitter.com/or0nc6RyN4
JACKSON: If you win, it is entirely possible that the federal court cases against the former president will continue on. He is, of course, facing those felony charges. Would you consider if you win and he’s convicted, a pardon for former President Trump?
HARRIS: I’m not going to get into those hypotheticals. I’m focused on the next 14 days.
JACKSON: But do you believe, is there any part of you that subscribes to the argument that has been made in the past that a pardon could help bring America together, could help you unify the country and move them, move on.
HARRIS: Let me tell you what’s going to help us move on. I get elected President of the United States.
JACKSON: One of the things you talked about is having a Republican in your camp- in your cabinet, potentially.
HARRIS: Yes.
JACKSON: You spent a lot of time on the campaign trail with former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, as you referenced, is she somebody who, is she somebody who would consider putting in the cabinet? Have you talked with her about this topic?
On Friday, new reports indicated Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) is set to officially launch his Senate campaign to unseat Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) in 2024.
According to Newsweek, Gallego is preparing to release a video announcing his campaign. The video was shot in the congressman’s home district and will be released in English and Spanish on Monday.
Gallego, the chair of BOLD PAC, the political arm of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, plans to make the announcement via a video in English and Spanish that was shot in his home district, which includes parts of Phoenix, according to three sources briefed by the campaign.
The progressive lawmaker and outspoken critic of Sinema has hinted at launching the Senate bid for some time. According to Fox News, Gallego told reporters last month that he was being encouraged by “some senators” to announce his Senate campaign.
“There have been some senators that have encouraged me to run,” Gallego said. “There are some senators, some of Sen. Sinema’s colleagues, that are encouraging me to run.”
Gallego did not identify which of Sinema’s colleagues are telling him to run, but predicted they would “absolutely” support him in a Senate race next year.
Last year, Sinema stunned everyone when she announced her detraction from the Democrat Party and switched to Independent. (RELATED:Kyrsten Sinema Leaves Democratic Party)
“Americans are told that we have only two choices – Democrat or Republican – and that we must subscribe wholesale to policy views the parties hold, views that have been pulled further and further toward the extremes,” Sinema wrote in the op-ed announcing her decision.
“Most Arizonans believe this is a false choice, and when I ran for the U.S. House and the Senate, I promised Arizonans something different,” she continued. “I pledged to be independent and work with anyone to achieve lasting results. I committed I would not demonize people I disagreed with, engage in name-calling, or get distracted by political
A group of Evanston, Illinois, residents are suing their city government over a $20 million scheme to give away $25,000 each to Black residents as “reparations” for wrongs experienced by past generations.
The nonprofit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “filed a class action lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois, on behalf of six individuals over the city’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a reparations program which makes $25,000 payments to black residents and descendants of black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969.” (RELATED: San Francisco Debates $5 Million Per Person Reparations Proposal)
The New York Times photo archive, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
“The Evanston, Illinois’ ‘reparations’ program is nothing more than a ploy to redistribute tax dollars to individuals based on race,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against anyone who does not identify as Black or African American. This class action, civil rights lawsuit will be a historic defense of our color-blind Constitution.”
“Through a series of resolutions, the Evanston City Council created a program to provide $25,000 cash payments to residents who lived in Evanston between 1919 and 1969 and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren,” JW reports, after filing a class action, civil rights lawsuit which challenges “on Equal Protection grounds Defendant City of Evanston’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for a program that makes $25,000 payments to residents and direct descendants of residents of the city five-plus decades if not more than a century ago. Plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the Defendant’s use of race to be unconstitutional. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction enjoining Defendant from continuing to use race as a requirement for receiving payment under the program and request that the Court award them and all class members damages in the amount of $25,000 each.”
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
JW argues that “the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because:”
Remedying societal discrimination is not a compelling governmental interest. Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 505 (1989); see also Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 307 ((1978) (opinion of Powell, J.) (describing “societal discrimination” as “an amorphous concept of injury that may be ageless in its reach into the past.”) Remedying discrimination from 55 to 105 years ago or remedying discrimination experienced at any time by an individual’s parents, grandparents, or great grandparents has not been recognized as a compelling governmental interest…
Defendant also has not and cannot demonstrate that its use of a race as an eligibility requirement is narrowly tailored. Among other shortcomings, Defendant’s use of race as a proxy for experiencing discrimination between 1919 and 1969 does not limit eligibility to persons who actually experienced discrimination during that relevant time period and therefore is overinclusive. Defendant also failed to consider race-neutral alternatives, such as requiring prospective recipients show that they or their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents actually experienced housing discrimination during the relevant time period because of an Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure, as Defendant requires for the third group of prospective recipients. Nor did Defendant take into account race-neutral anti-discrimination remedies before adopting its race-based eligibility requirement.
According to JW, the program works as follows:
The first group of persons eligible for the $25,000 payments are current Evanston residents who identify as Black or African American and were at least 18 years of age between 1919 and 1969. Evanston refers to this group as “ancestors.”
The second group are individuals who identify as Black or African American who are at least 18 years of age and have at least one parent, grandparent, or great grandparent who identifies (or identified) as Black or African American, lived in Evanston for any period between 1919 and 1969, and was at least 18 at the time. Evanston refers to this group as “direct descendants.” A “direct descendant” is not required to be a current resident of Evanston to receive the payment.
“At no point in the application process are persons in the first and second groups required to present evidence that they or their ancestors experienced housing discrimination or otherwise suffered harm because of an unlawful Evanston ordinance, policy, or procedure or some other unlawful act or series of acts by Evanston between 1919 and 1969,” Judicial Watch states in the laws.” “In effect, Evanston is using race as a proxy for having experienced discrimination during this time period.” (RELATED: Squad Member Introduces Proposal For $14 Trillion In Reparations)
Judicial Watch states in the lawsuit that “the six plaintiffs satisfy all eligibility requirements for participating in the program as ‘direct descendants’ other that the race requirement (the actual number of individuals who are potential class members is in the tens of thousands).”
Christine Svenson of Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC is assisting Judicial Watch in the lawsuit.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It first appeared in American Liberty News.
