Monday, February 23, 2026

Judge Rejects Mistrial Motion in Daniel Penny Subway Chokehold Case.

Defense lawyers for Marine veteran Daniel Penny, on trial over the death of homeless black man Jordan Neely, pushed for a mistrial on Thursday, citing testimony from a witness they deemed biased and accusing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s office of promoting an anti-white narrative. They protested the characterization of Penny as a “White vigilante” and opposed witness Johnny Grima’s courtroom statement labeling Penny a “murderer” and “abuser,” despite neither murder nor domestic abuse being among the charges.

Penny, 26, was an architecture student in New York and a former U.S. Marine. Defense attorney Thomas Kenniff stated that the deceased, Jordan Neely, 30, had a history of violent and threatening behavior, including an alleged attack on an elderly woman for which he had an active warrant. This comment led to an outburst among courtroom spectators, requiring court officers to intervene.

Judge Maxwell Wiley declined the mistrial request but acknowledged the defense’s concerns.

Prosecutors argue that Penny excessively restrained Neely, who—according to multiple witness statements—was making threats and throwing trash at passengers on a Manhattan subway. Penny’s defense insists his actions were justified under the circumstances. Paul Mauro, a retired NYPD inspector, noted that the standard for conviction requires proving recklessness or negligence, which he disputed given Neely’s verbal threats.

If convicted, Penny could face up to 19 years in prison. The trial is anticipated to last six weeks, and Friday marks its twelfth day. The District Attorney’s office has yet to comment on the proceedings.

show less
Defense lawyers for Marine veteran Daniel Penny, on trial over the death of homeless black man Jordan Neely, pushed for a mistrial on Thursday, citing testimony from a witness they deemed biased and accusing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office of promoting an anti-white narrative. They protested the characterization of Penny as a "White vigilante" and opposed witness Johnny Grima's courtroom statement labeling Penny a "murderer" and "abuser," despite neither murder nor domestic abuse being among the charges. show more

Former AG Bill Barr: Prosecutors Must Drop Lawfare Cases Against President-Elect Trump.

Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, who served in the first administration of President Donald J. Trump, is calling on his successor Merrick Garland—as well as Democrat District Attorneys Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis—to dismiss all criminal charges against the Republican president-elect. Barr contends that the verdict issued by the American people, based on Trump’s landslide electoral victory, should supersede their lawfare prosecutions.

“The American people have rendered their verdict on President Trump and decisively chosen him to lead the country for the next four years. They chose him to lead us with full knowledge of the claims against him by prosecutors around the country,” Barr said Wednesday in a statement. He continued: “I think Attorney General Merrick Garland and the State prosecutors should respect the people’s decision and dismiss the cases against President Trump now.”

Trump’s former Attorney General argues that the indictments against the president-elect are largely based on “novel legal theories” that “have already been gravely weakened by a series of court decisions.” Barr states that both the federal and state prosecutions against Trump have been “aired and rejected in the court of public opinion.” He adds that once Trump takes the Oath of Office, the U.S. Consitution renders the cases moot.

While at least three of the cases against Trump could be dropped now that he has won the 2024 presidential election, the former and future Republican president was found guilty of 34 counts of business record fraud in New York City. Trump is set to be sentenced by Judge Juan Merchan on November 26, though the judge may rule that presidential immunity effectively ends the legal action against him.

show less
Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, who served in the first administration of President Donald J. Trump, is calling on his successor Merrick Garland—as well as Democrat District Attorneys Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis—to dismiss all criminal charges against the Republican president-elect. Barr contends that the verdict issued by the American people, based on Trump's landslide electoral victory, should supersede their lawfare prosecutions. show more

BREAKING–Trump Sentencing Delayed Until AFTER Election, Here’s the New Date…

The sentencing of former President Donald J. Trump in the New York business fraud trial brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been delayed until after the 2024 presidential election in November. Judge Juan Merchan—who presided over the case—issued the decision Friday afternoon, setting the new date for the sentencing hearing for November 26.

“This is not a decision this Court makes lightly but it is the decision which in this Court’s view, best advances the interests of justice,” Merchan wrote in his decision. He adds that “…the imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance—however unwarranted—that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate.”

Attorneys for former President Trump requested a delay in the sentencing hearing in mid-August. Subsequently, DA Bragg’s response indicated that his office had no objection to a delay. Trump’s original sentencing date was set for July 11 but was moved to September 18 in response to the United States Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, which gave both legal teams and Judge Merchan time to review the high court decision.

Additionally, Merchan set November 12 as the date he’ll rule on a Trump motion to dismiss the conviction based on the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. Notably, the judge appeared to suggest that the sentencing hearing may not even be necessary, suggesting he may believe that Bragg’s prosecution of Trump is unconstitutional on immunity grounds.

show less
The sentencing of former President Donald J. Trump in the New York business fraud trial brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been delayed until after the 2024 presidential election in November. Judge Juan Merchan—who presided over the case—issued the decision Friday afternoon, setting the new date for the sentencing hearing for November 26. show more

BREAKING–Hidden Camera Shows DOJ Spox Admitting Anti-Trump Lawfare Campaign Is Political ‘Perversion of Justice.’

A top public affairs official within Joe Biden‘s Department of Justice (DOJ) is admitting that the Democrat-led lawfare campaign against former President Donald J. Trump is “a perversion of justice” and “a mockery of justice.” Nicholas Biase, who serves as the chief of public affairs for the DOJ’s U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), made the remarks on an undercover video released by Steven Crowder, in which he blasted the federal and state prosecutions of Trump as a “travesty.”

“The whole thing is disgusting,” Biase said in the undercover video, adding: “That’s why [Trump‘s] surging in the polls.” Biase states that even his colleagues in the Southern District of New York believe the prosecutions are politically motivated and a “perversion.”

ALVIN BRAGG’S NONSENSE CASE.

Addressing the business fraud case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Biase accuses the Democrat DA of essentially stitching together the flimsy case to further his political career and interfere in the 2024 presidential election. “[Alvin Bragg] was stacking charges and rearranging things just to make it fit a case,” the DOJ official states. Baise adds: “To be honest with you, I think the case is nonsense.”

“The state level is like the fucking wild west,” the SDNY spokesman says before continuing: “They’re like, idiots.”

“They don’t care. They’re all political,” Baise said, concluding: ” They’re going to try and lock [Trump] up. It’s going to be ugly.”

‘MOCKERY OF JUSTICE.’

Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis was not spared Biase’s criticism either. The SDNY chief public affairs office slammed the Georgia prosecutor and her case. “It’s a travesty of justice,” he says, continuing: “To put it mildly, its a mockery of justice. [Fani Willis] is a joke.”

“Like her and her boyfriend she was seeing, the whole thing is disgusting,” Baise argues, adding: “And they’re just out to get [Trump].”

WATCH:

show less
A top public affairs official within Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) is admitting that the Democrat-led lawfare campaign against former President Donald J. Trump is "a perversion of justice" and "a mockery of justice." Nicholas Biase, who serves as the chief of public affairs for the DOJ's U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), made the remarks on an undercover video released by Steven Crowder, in which he blasted the federal and state prosecutions of Trump as a "travesty." show more
Merchan Bragg

Trump’s Latest Move to Throw Out the NY Case: What Does It Mean?

Attorneys for former President Donald J. Trump are asking, for a second time, that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution be removed to federal court. Their newest filing cites significant legal issues in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court‘s presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States.

“This ‘zombie’ case should have been dismissed long ago,” write Trump‘s attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove in the motion. “The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office (‘DANY‘) violated the Presidential immunity doctrine in grand jury proceedings, and again at trial, by relying on evidence of President Trump’s official acts during his first term in Office.”

IMMUNITY RULING.

At the core of the Trump legal team’s filing is Bragg‘s reliance on testimony from Trump White House aide Hope Hicks—as well as emails and other documents submitted as evidence through her testimony.

The Supreme Court held in early July that former President Trump—and all U.S. presidents—are presumed to be immune from prosecution for official acts in office. Hicks’s testimony and documents entered into evidence by Bragg likely falls under this immunity, meaning they are inadmissible.

PREDICATE CRIME PROBLEM.

“The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that these types of violations threaten the structure of the federal government and the ability of future Presidents to carry out their vital duties in the way the Framers intended,” the removal filing reads.

Trump‘s attorneys also raise the issue of the predicate charges—also impacted by a recent Supreme Court ruling: “DANY’s flawed case is also preempted because their Indictment turned on the improper use of state law to try to retroactively police the 2016 Presidential election through non-unanimous jury findings.”

If successful, the case would be removed from the jurisdiction of New York Judge Juan Merchan and moved to federal court, where the charges against Trump could be quickly vacated and thrown out.

show less
Attorneys for former President Donald J. Trump are asking, for a second time, that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution be removed to federal court. Their newest filing cites significant legal issues in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States. show more

DOCUMENTS: Trump Prosecutor Listed DNC’s Perez, Biden Chief Zients as References in Job App to Letitia James.

Matthew Colangelo—one of the prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s lawfare case against former President Donald J. Trump—listed former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez and Joe Biden‘s chief-of-staff Jeff Zients as references on his application for a position with New York Attorney General Letitia James. The Manhattan prosecutor and former top attorney at Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) would eventually serve as Chief Counsel for Federal Initiatives in James’s office, overseeing the New York AG’s investigations into former President Trump.

The revelation that Colangelo listed two powerful Democrat figures as references in his application for Executive Deputy Attorney General in the New York AG’s office adds further credence to concerns that he served as the point man for the Democratic lawfare campaign against Trump. Colangelo featured prominently in the Bragg trial, even delivering opening arguments for the prosecution.

Additionally, Colangelo‘s departure from the DOJ on November 18, 2022, raises red flags, as he occupied one of the top roles in the department as Acting Associate Attorney General—which he gave up to take a lesser role and pay cut with Alvin Bragg.

While Bragg had hesitated to pursue falsifying business records charges against Trump over alleged hush money payments, after Colangelo joined his office, Bragg reversed course and began an aggressive investigation.

The National Pulse has reported that Colangelo and DA Alvin Bragg agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee later this year. Initially slated for July 12, the hearing was delayed after Judge Juan Merchan agreed to push back Trump’s sentencing to September 18. The House Judiciary hearing will now occur at some date thereafter.

READ:

show less
Matthew Colangelo—one of the prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's lawfare case against former President Donald J. Trump—listed former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez and Joe Biden's chief-of-staff Jeff Zients as references on his application for a position with New York Attorney General Letitia James. The Manhattan prosecutor and former top attorney at Joe Biden's Department of Justice (DOJ) would eventually serve as Chief Counsel for Federal Initiatives in James's office, overseeing the New York AG's investigations into former President Trump. show more

Missouri AG Files SCOTUS Legal Challenge Against Trump NY Case.

Attorney General Andrew Bailey of Missouri has initiated legal action against the State of New York, alleging that its handling of former President Donald Trump’s so-called hush money trial infringed on the First Amendment rights of Missouri residents.

Bailey contends that the legal proceedings and the associated gag orders imposed on Trump restrain the former president from speaking freely during his 2024 reelection campaign, thereby affecting the rights of Missourians to hear him.

The lawsuit petitions the Supreme Court and requests a declaration that New York unlawfully interfered with the presidential election process. Additionally, it seeks to postpone Trump’s upcoming sentencing until after the conclusion of the November election. Finally, it demands the removal of any gag orders against Trump.

Trump’s sentencing in the case was already delayed until September following a motion by Trump’s attorneys that was not opposed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg earlier this week. The motion argues the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity invalidates the New York conviction.

Bailey argues the requested measures are critical to ensuring that Missourians have unimpeded access to Trump’s viewpoints as they make their decisions in the forthcoming election. According to the lawsuit, the restrictions on Trump’s speech represent a significant overreach and censorship that deprives the public of critical information.

New York’s response to the lawsuit has not yet been publicly disclosed. Observers suggest the case could set a precedent regarding the extent to which legal actions can impact political campaigns and voters’ rights to access unfiltered communications from candidates.

The Supreme Court’s response to Bailey’s petition will be closely watched for its implications on future interactions between state law enforcement actions and federal electoral processes.

show less
Attorney General Andrew Bailey of Missouri has initiated legal action against the State of New York, alleging that its handling of former President Donald Trump's so-called hush money trial infringed on the First Amendment rights of Missouri residents. show more

ICYMI: Tucker Warns Biden Is ‘Done,’ America in ‘Legitimate Danger’ if Panicking Dems Jail Trump.

Tucker Carlson has declared Joe Biden is “done” after his disastrous debate against Donald Trump, as “Too many prominent Democrats have suggested he’s brain damaged.”

“They can’t walk that back. They have to remove him, and they will,” said the former Fox News host.

“The only question is when. If they’re smart, they’ll do it immediately. If Kamala’s going to be the nominee, she might as well be the president first,” Carlson continued. “That leaves the question of Trump, and his sentencing on July 11. Biden’s collapse makes this a much more perilous moment than it was. At this point Trump is not just the Republican candidate, but effectively the presumptive president,” he suggested.

“If you’re going to put him in jail, it had better be for a very serious crime that everyone agrees he committed. Otherwise you risk destroying the system completely and forever. We’re in legitimate danger,” he warned, adding, “Democrats need to pull back.”

Flaws in the Democrat-led Justice Department’s handling of a classified documents case against Trump, the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, and the collapse of Democrat District Attorney Fani Willis‘s RICO case against Trump in Georgia mean he is unlikely to be tried for anything beyond Alvin Bragg’s Manhattan case before the election.

The Manhattan conviction is highly dubious and some legal analysts predict it will be reversed on appeal. Still, it could result in significant prison time if compromised Biden donor judge Juan Merchan chooses to be vindictive.

However, the Manhattan sentencing date Carlson references has already been pushed back to September. This follows Supreme Court rulings that have thrown the conviction into jeopardy.

show less
Tucker Carlson has declared Joe Biden is "done" after his disastrous debate against Donald Trump, as "Too many prominent Democrats have suggested he’s brain damaged." show more
Merchan Bragg

Trump’s Sentencing Has Been Delayed – Here’s The New Date.

The July 11 sentencing of former President Donald J. Trump is being delayed until September 18 after two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In a letter sent to Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said his office was not opposed to a motion by attorneys for the former president asking to delay the sentencing hearing.

Trump‘s legal team asked the judge late last night for leave until July 10 to file a motion to set aside the verdict based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States. According to the high court, official communications between a president and government officials—pertaining to official acts—cannot be used as evidence against them in a criminal trial. This would effectively rule some of the evidence presented by Bragg in the New York trial inadmissible.

“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Bragg states. He adds: “We respectfully request a deadline of July 24, 2024—two weeks after defendant’s requested deadline—to file and serve a response.”

Judge Merchan responded late Tuesday that former President Trump’s sentencing hearing would be moved to September 18.

ERLINGER.

In addition to its ruling in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court‘s decision in Erlinger v. United States could also impact Trump’s conviction.

In Erlinger, the court reaffirmed that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on a criminal conviction, even on underlying predicate crimes. Before former President Trump‘s conviction in late May, Judge Merchan had instructed jurors that they did not have to come to a unanimous decision on the underlying predicate crimes that allowed Bragg to revive the 34 counts against Trump for allegedly falsifying business records.

READ:

show less
The July 11 sentencing of former President Donald J. Trump is being delayed until September 18 after two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In a letter sent to Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said his office was not opposed to a motion by attorneys for the former president asking to delay the sentencing hearing. show more

SCOTUS Gives Ammunition To Trump’s Manhattan Hush Money Appeal.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday in Erlinger v. United States, which could have important implications for former President Donald J. Trump‘s appeal of the verdict in the Manhattan hush-money case and in the January 6 rioter prosecutions. In Erlinger, the court reaffirmed that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on a criminal conviction, even on underlying predicate crimes.

Additionally, the justices ruled that judges cannot arbitrarily impose sentence enhancements on convicted defendants and that judges cannot issue sentences for crimes beyond those of a jury that unanimously convicts. While the ruling does not directly intervene in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution of the former President, it does open the question of the merit of the prosecution for Trump‘s appeal.

A BLOW TO BRAGG.

The Supreme Court‘s ruling will likely serve as one of the prongs on which former President Trump‘s defense attorneys will attack Bragg‘s case upon appeal. In late May, a Manhattan jury convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The charges stemmed from allegations that Trump has paid hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair and influence the 2016 presidential election.

Bragg could only prosecute the case because of an amorphous underlying federal felony that allowed him to resurrect the business record charges, which are beyond the statute of limitations. In his jury instructions, Judge Juan Merchan—who presided over the trial—told jurors they did not need to be unanimous on which federal felony would serve as the predicate crime underpinning the falsifying business record charges. In Erlinger, it appears the Supreme Court has determined that this action violates the defendant’s constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment.

THE JAN 6 CASES.

In addition to the Manhattan hush money prosecution of former President Trump, Erlinger also has implications for the January 6 defendants. The court holds in its decision that enhanced sentencing of defendants cannot be issued through judicial fiat. Instead, judges must follow sentencing guidelines on the crimes for which a jury finds explicitly a defendant guilty.

Paul Erlinger was exposed to a potential life sentence as a felon who was found illegally in possession of a firearm after a judge applied predicate crimes, which allowed for enhanced sentencing. However, the predicate crimes in question were determined by the Supreme Court to no longer apply under the provisions used by the judge—and were not considered by the jury in their conviction of Erlinger.

While speculative, the Erlinger ruling suggests a high degree of skepticism among the justices toward the government’s enhanced sentencing procedures. This may indicate the Supreme Court intends to take this issue further in Fischer v. United States, which challenges the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ)’s use of a financial crimes law’s ‘obstruction of an official proceeding’ provision to secure enhanced sentences for the January 6 rioters. The court will likely hand down a ruling in Fischer next week.

WATCH: 

show less
The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday in Erlinger v. United States, which could have important implications for former President Donald J. Trump's appeal of the verdict in the Manhattan hush-money case and in the January 6 rioter prosecutions. In Erlinger, the court reaffirmed that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on a criminal conviction, even on underlying predicate crimes. show more