EXCLUSIVE — Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) on Tuesday will introduce a bill that aims to protect Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants from retaliation by federal prosecutors when seeking petitions for resentencing.

The bill “will provide significant relief for January 6th defendants and ensure federal prosecutors stop aggressively pursuing charges if defendants petition for resentencing,” Gaetz told the Washington Examiner. “Additionally, it will ensure that justice is served fairly, balancing the need for accountability with the protection of individual rights.”

Gaetz is slated to introduce the new legislation known as the Resentencing Integrity Act of 2024 as Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Colette Peters testifies before the House Judiciary Committee beginning at 10 a.m.

Gaetz’s move comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States, which narrowed the scope of Section 1512(c)(2), a law that bars obstruction of an official proceeding. The justices ruled in a 6-3 decision that the statute applies only to evidence tampering. Before this landmark ruling, officials from President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice threatened to seek additional jail time for people seeking new sentences after their initial ones were deemed illegal.

The proposed legislation would require courts to credit time defendants have already served toward any new sentence, capping this credit at 10 years. It comes as the DOJ has been signaling in court filings that it is exploring other means to tack on additional charges if a defendant’s case qualifies for a resentencing in light of Fischer.

There were around 259 defendants from the Capitol attack facing the obstruction charge when the Supreme Court narrowed how 1512(c)(2) can be applied, according to DOJ records. Among those defendants are five alleged members of the Proud Boys group, including Arthur Jackman, Edward George Jr., Paul Rae, and the father-and-son pair Kevin and Nate Tuck.

In a court filing last Monday, prosecutors said each defendant in that group of five has been offered a plea deal that does not include the obstruction charge. But if they do not take the deal, DOJ prosecutors have vowed to dismiss the charge and take the defendants to trial on other alleged crimes.

The DOJ has argued in court filings the agency is still “evaluating” the impacts of Fischer for other defendants but has maintained the ruling did not reject the application of 1512(c)(2) to Jan. 6 prosecutions.

The ruling held that the “government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding — such as witness testimony or intangible information — or attempted to do so,” U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves submitted in the case of the five Proud Boys defendants.

The introduction of Gaetz’s bill coincides with growing scrutiny of the BOP and its leadership. House Republicans in May demanded testimony from Peters following her refusal to allow Congress to speak with former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro, who was recently released from prison after being sentenced to prison for four months for defying a subpoena from the now-defunct Jan. 6 committee.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“I’ve been trying for five weeks to be able to interview Mr. Navarro,” Gaetz said in May while Navarro was still in prison. “And there are provisions that ought to allow this, and I was informed directly by Director Peters that the request would be denied because Peter Navarro is ‘too notorious’ to be interviewed by a member of Congress.”

As the Judiciary Committee prepares to hear Peters’s testimony, Gaetz’s Resentencing Integrity Act of 2024 represents a significant legislative effort to address perceived injustices within the federal sentencing system, particularly for those involved in the Jan. 6 events. The bill aims to ensure that any resentencing process is conducted fairly and without undue influence or retaliation from federal prosecutors.

Read the bill here:

GAETZ_236_xml[1] by Kaelan Deese on Scribd

2024-07-23 13:40:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fhouse%2F3095241%2Fgaetz-bill-limit-harsh-sentences-jan-6-defendants%2F?w=600&h=450, EXCLUSIVE — Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) on Tuesday will introduce a bill that aims to protect Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants from retaliation by federal prosecutors when seeking petitions for resentencing. The bill “will provide significant relief for January 6th defendants and ensure federal prosecutors stop aggressively pursuing charges if defendants petition for resentencing,” Gaetz,

EXCLUSIVE — Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) on Tuesday will introduce a bill that aims to protect Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants from retaliation by federal prosecutors when seeking petitions for resentencing.

The bill “will provide significant relief for January 6th defendants and ensure federal prosecutors stop aggressively pursuing charges if defendants petition for resentencing,” Gaetz told the Washington Examiner. “Additionally, it will ensure that justice is served fairly, balancing the need for accountability with the protection of individual rights.”

Gaetz is slated to introduce the new legislation known as the Resentencing Integrity Act of 2024 as Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Colette Peters testifies before the House Judiciary Committee beginning at 10 a.m.

Gaetz’s move comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States, which narrowed the scope of Section 1512(c)(2), a law that bars obstruction of an official proceeding. The justices ruled in a 6-3 decision that the statute applies only to evidence tampering. Before this landmark ruling, officials from President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice threatened to seek additional jail time for people seeking new sentences after their initial ones were deemed illegal.

The proposed legislation would require courts to credit time defendants have already served toward any new sentence, capping this credit at 10 years. It comes as the DOJ has been signaling in court filings that it is exploring other means to tack on additional charges if a defendant’s case qualifies for a resentencing in light of Fischer.

There were around 259 defendants from the Capitol attack facing the obstruction charge when the Supreme Court narrowed how 1512(c)(2) can be applied, according to DOJ records. Among those defendants are five alleged members of the Proud Boys group, including Arthur Jackman, Edward George Jr., Paul Rae, and the father-and-son pair Kevin and Nate Tuck.

In a court filing last Monday, prosecutors said each defendant in that group of five has been offered a plea deal that does not include the obstruction charge. But if they do not take the deal, DOJ prosecutors have vowed to dismiss the charge and take the defendants to trial on other alleged crimes.

The DOJ has argued in court filings the agency is still “evaluating” the impacts of Fischer for other defendants but has maintained the ruling did not reject the application of 1512(c)(2) to Jan. 6 prosecutions.

The ruling held that the “government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding — such as witness testimony or intangible information — or attempted to do so,” U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves submitted in the case of the five Proud Boys defendants.

The introduction of Gaetz’s bill coincides with growing scrutiny of the BOP and its leadership. House Republicans in May demanded testimony from Peters following her refusal to allow Congress to speak with former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro, who was recently released from prison after being sentenced to prison for four months for defying a subpoena from the now-defunct Jan. 6 committee.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“I’ve been trying for five weeks to be able to interview Mr. Navarro,” Gaetz said in May while Navarro was still in prison. “And there are provisions that ought to allow this, and I was informed directly by Director Peters that the request would be denied because Peter Navarro is ‘too notorious’ to be interviewed by a member of Congress.”

As the Judiciary Committee prepares to hear Peters’s testimony, Gaetz’s Resentencing Integrity Act of 2024 represents a significant legislative effort to address perceived injustices within the federal sentencing system, particularly for those involved in the Jan. 6 events. The bill aims to ensure that any resentencing process is conducted fairly and without undue influence or retaliation from federal prosecutors.

Read the bill here:

GAETZ_236_xml[1] by Kaelan Deese on Scribd

, EXCLUSIVE — Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) on Tuesday will introduce a bill that aims to protect Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants from retaliation by federal prosecutors when seeking petitions for resentencing. The bill “will provide significant relief for January 6th defendants and ensure federal prosecutors stop aggressively pursuing charges if defendants petition for resentencing,” Gaetz told the Washington Examiner. “Additionally, it will ensure that justice is served fairly, balancing the need for accountability with the protection of individual rights.” Violent protesters, loyal to then-President Donald Trump, storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/John Minchillo) Gaetz is slated to introduce the new legislation known as the Resentencing Integrity Act of 2024 as Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Colette Peters testifies before the House Judiciary Committee beginning at 10 a.m. Gaetz’s move comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States, which narrowed the scope of Section 1512(c)(2), a law that bars obstruction of an official proceeding. The justices ruled in a 6-3 decision that the statute applies only to evidence tampering. Before this landmark ruling, officials from President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice threatened to seek additional jail time for people seeking new sentences after their initial ones were deemed illegal. The proposed legislation would require courts to credit time defendants have already served toward any new sentence, capping this credit at 10 years. It comes as the DOJ has been signaling in court filings that it is exploring other means to tack on additional charges if a defendant’s case qualifies for a resentencing in light of Fischer. There were around 259 defendants from the Capitol attack facing the obstruction charge when the Supreme Court narrowed how 1512(c)(2) can be applied, according to DOJ records. Among those defendants are five alleged members of the Proud Boys group, including Arthur Jackman, Edward George Jr., Paul Rae, and the father-and-son pair Kevin and Nate Tuck. In a court filing last Monday, prosecutors said each defendant in that group of five has been offered a plea deal that does not include the obstruction charge. But if they do not take the deal, DOJ prosecutors have vowed to dismiss the charge and take the defendants to trial on other alleged crimes. The DOJ has argued in court filings the agency is still “evaluating” the impacts of Fischer for other defendants but has maintained the ruling did not reject the application of 1512(c)(2) to Jan. 6 prosecutions. The ruling held that the “government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding — such as witness testimony or intangible information — or attempted to do so,” U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves submitted in the case of the five Proud Boys defendants. The introduction of Gaetz’s bill coincides with growing scrutiny of the BOP and its leadership. House Republicans in May demanded testimony from Peters following her refusal to allow Congress to speak with former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro, who was recently released from prison after being sentenced to prison for four months for defying a subpoena from the now-defunct Jan. 6 committee. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER “I’ve been trying for five weeks to be able to interview Mr. Navarro,” Gaetz said in May while Navarro was still in prison. “And there are provisions that ought to allow this, and I was informed directly by Director Peters that the request would be denied because Peter Navarro is ‘too notorious’ to be interviewed by a member of Congress.” As the Judiciary Committee prepares to hear Peters’s testimony, Gaetz’s Resentencing Integrity Act of 2024 represents a significant legislative effort to address perceived injustices within the federal sentencing system, particularly for those involved in the Jan. 6 events. The bill aims to ensure that any resentencing process is conducted fairly and without undue influence or retaliation from federal prosecutors. Read the bill here: GAETZ_236_xml[1] by Kaelan Deese on Scribd, , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24165507275003.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

A long-shot legal fight to challenge President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election race is now moving forward after his historic decision to bow out on Sunday.

The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has been leading the threat of legal action, publicizing a June 21 memo on the matter immediately after last month’s presidential debate, the event that catalyzed the president’s decision to end his campaign. The memo warned of a “contentious path” to replacing Biden on the ballot, though questions linger as to whether they will bear fruit as Biden steers Democrats to coalesce around Vice President Kamala Harris.

In a brief post to X, formerly known as Twitter, the Oversight Project said to “Stay tuned” for more information about efforts to litigate the president and former presumptive nominee’s decision to bow out of the race.

“We have been preparing for this moment for months … Many in the media tried discrediting us … Who is laughing now? No more ‘making it up as you go’ elections,” the account added.

Now, plans and strategies about whether to move ahead with lawsuits to challenge Biden’s abrupt campaign suspension are underway. The Oversight Project intends to keep all information pertaining to potential challenges relegated to court briefs and via announcements through official social media accounts, a source told the Washington Examiner.

While it’s unclear at this time where lawsuits may be filed, the memo released last month suggested there could be litigation in Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin if anyone other than Biden is the nominee, though election law experts have countered that Biden was never officially named the nominee for the Democratic ticket and that his withdrawal comes well before the states’ ballot certification deadlines.

University of California professor Rick Hasen wrote in a recent blog post that the road to contesting the substitute candidate on state election ballots appears futile if not entirely pointless.

“In the unlikely event that a state law would make Biden be forced to be listed on the ballot (I’m not even sure how that could be), then I expect litigation would place the actual nominee of the party on the ballot,” Hasen said. “Voters should have the right to vote for the party’s candidate, and there are cases that affirm this principle that go back a while.”

Litigators who would aim to contest any legal effort to stop the swap of a new Democratic candidate include veteran Democratic Party lawyer Marc Elias, who affirmed Sunday that the “Democratic nominee for president will be on all 50 state ballots.”

“There is no basis for any legal challenge. Period,” Elias added.

Though now it’s conservative groups, such as the Heritage Foundation, who are challenging a candidate’s validity, earlier this year, Democrat groups failed to knock Trump off the ballot.

In a lawsuit stemming from Colorado and brought by the left-wing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to keep Trump on all state election ballots after a small cohort of voters cited his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 riot as the basis to bar him from office under the 14th Amendment.

Before Biden’s sudden withdrawal letter was issued Sunday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) hinted at legal challenges to Biden’s removal, though he did not specify a legal strategy.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“I think they’ve got legal hurdles in some of these states,” he mentioned on CNN, noting that 14 million people cast their votes for Biden in the primary election. “And it’ll be litigated, I would expect, on the ground there.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison seemed to indicate on Sunday that the choice to replace Biden would be made via an open convention, although Harris may ultimately be the top choice. The Democratic National Convention will be held August 19-22 in Chicago.

2024-07-21 22:26:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3092916%2Fconservative-legal-fight-over-biden-withdrawal%2F?w=600&h=450, A long-shot legal fight to challenge President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election race is now moving forward after his historic decision to bow out on Sunday. The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has been leading the threat of legal action, publicizing a June 21 memo on the matter immediately after last month’s presidential debate, the,

A long-shot legal fight to challenge President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election race is now moving forward after his historic decision to bow out on Sunday.

The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has been leading the threat of legal action, publicizing a June 21 memo on the matter immediately after last month’s presidential debate, the event that catalyzed the president’s decision to end his campaign. The memo warned of a “contentious path” to replacing Biden on the ballot, though questions linger as to whether they will bear fruit as Biden steers Democrats to coalesce around Vice President Kamala Harris.

In a brief post to X, formerly known as Twitter, the Oversight Project said to “Stay tuned” for more information about efforts to litigate the president and former presumptive nominee’s decision to bow out of the race.

“We have been preparing for this moment for months … Many in the media tried discrediting us … Who is laughing now? No more ‘making it up as you go’ elections,” the account added.

Now, plans and strategies about whether to move ahead with lawsuits to challenge Biden’s abrupt campaign suspension are underway. The Oversight Project intends to keep all information pertaining to potential challenges relegated to court briefs and via announcements through official social media accounts, a source told the Washington Examiner.

While it’s unclear at this time where lawsuits may be filed, the memo released last month suggested there could be litigation in Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin if anyone other than Biden is the nominee, though election law experts have countered that Biden was never officially named the nominee for the Democratic ticket and that his withdrawal comes well before the states’ ballot certification deadlines.

University of California professor Rick Hasen wrote in a recent blog post that the road to contesting the substitute candidate on state election ballots appears futile if not entirely pointless.

“In the unlikely event that a state law would make Biden be forced to be listed on the ballot (I’m not even sure how that could be), then I expect litigation would place the actual nominee of the party on the ballot,” Hasen said. “Voters should have the right to vote for the party’s candidate, and there are cases that affirm this principle that go back a while.”

Litigators who would aim to contest any legal effort to stop the swap of a new Democratic candidate include veteran Democratic Party lawyer Marc Elias, who affirmed Sunday that the “Democratic nominee for president will be on all 50 state ballots.”

“There is no basis for any legal challenge. Period,” Elias added.

Though now it’s conservative groups, such as the Heritage Foundation, who are challenging a candidate’s validity, earlier this year, Democrat groups failed to knock Trump off the ballot.

In a lawsuit stemming from Colorado and brought by the left-wing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to keep Trump on all state election ballots after a small cohort of voters cited his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 riot as the basis to bar him from office under the 14th Amendment.

Before Biden’s sudden withdrawal letter was issued Sunday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) hinted at legal challenges to Biden’s removal, though he did not specify a legal strategy.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“I think they’ve got legal hurdles in some of these states,” he mentioned on CNN, noting that 14 million people cast their votes for Biden in the primary election. “And it’ll be litigated, I would expect, on the ground there.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison seemed to indicate on Sunday that the choice to replace Biden would be made via an open convention, although Harris may ultimately be the top choice. The Democratic National Convention will be held August 19-22 in Chicago.

, A long-shot legal fight to challenge President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election race is now moving forward after his historic decision to bow out on Sunday. The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has been leading the threat of legal action, publicizing a June 21 memo on the matter immediately after last month’s presidential debate, the event that catalyzed the president’s decision to end his campaign. The memo warned of a “contentious path” to replacing Biden on the ballot, though questions linger as to whether they will bear fruit as Biden steers Democrats to coalesce around Vice President Kamala Harris. A news crawl appears on the side of the Fox News building in New York Sunday, July 21, 2024.. (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle) In a brief post to X, formerly known as Twitter, the Oversight Project said to “Stay tuned” for more information about efforts to litigate the president and former presumptive nominee’s decision to bow out of the race. “We have been preparing for this moment for months … Many in the media tried discrediting us … Who is laughing now? No more ‘making it up as you go’ elections,” the account added. We have been preparing for this moment for months Many in the media tried discrediting us Who is laughing now? No more “make it up as you go” elections Stay tuned… https://t.co/eODcN7DpQP — Oversight Project (@OversightPR) July 21, 2024 Now, plans and strategies about whether to move ahead with lawsuits to challenge Biden’s abrupt campaign suspension are underway. The Oversight Project intends to keep all information pertaining to potential challenges relegated to court briefs and via announcements through official social media accounts, a source told the Washington Examiner. While it’s unclear at this time where lawsuits may be filed, the memo released last month suggested there could be litigation in Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin if anyone other than Biden is the nominee, though election law experts have countered that Biden was never officially named the nominee for the Democratic ticket and that his withdrawal comes well before the states’ ballot certification deadlines. University of California professor Rick Hasen wrote in a recent blog post that the road to contesting the substitute candidate on state election ballots appears futile if not entirely pointless. “In the unlikely event that a state law would make Biden be forced to be listed on the ballot (I’m not even sure how that could be), then I expect litigation would place the actual nominee of the party on the ballot,” Hasen said. “Voters should have the right to vote for the party’s candidate, and there are cases that affirm this principle that go back a while.” Litigators who would aim to contest any legal effort to stop the swap of a new Democratic candidate include veteran Democratic Party lawyer Marc Elias, who affirmed Sunday that the “Democratic nominee for president will be on all 50 state ballots.” “There is no basis for any legal challenge. Period,” Elias added. Before the media gets rolling, let me be clear: The Democratic nominee for president will be on all 50 state ballots. There is no basis for any legal challenge. Period.— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) July 21, 2024 Though now it’s conservative groups, such as the Heritage Foundation, who are challenging a candidate’s validity, earlier this year, Democrat groups failed to knock Trump off the ballot. In a lawsuit stemming from Colorado and brought by the left-wing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 to keep Trump on all state election ballots after a small cohort of voters cited his alleged involvement in the Jan. 6 riot as the basis to bar him from office under the 14th Amendment. Before Biden’s sudden withdrawal letter was issued Sunday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) hinted at legal challenges to Biden’s removal, though he did not specify a legal strategy. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER “I think they’ve got legal hurdles in some of these states,” he mentioned on CNN, noting that 14 million people cast their votes for Biden in the primary election. “And it’ll be litigated, I would expect, on the ground there.” Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison seemed to indicate on Sunday that the choice to replace Biden would be made via an open convention, although Harris may ultimately be the top choice. The Democratic National Convention will be held August 19-22 in Chicago., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Biden_Out_1.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

Former President Donald Trump’s favorability rating has surged in the wake of the assassination attempt against him last weekend, according to a new poll showing the public effect of the historic near-miss shooting.

Trump’s favorability rose to 40%, his highest in four years, with 51% still viewing him unfavorably, according to a new ABC/Ipsos poll. This follows a close call with a shooter at the July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and his record-breaking long speech Thursday evening at the Republican National Convention.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden‘s favorability remains at 32%, with 55% holding an unfavorable view. Concerns about Biden’s age and cognitive abilities after a recent debate have led 60% of Democrats to suggest he step aside. Surprisingly, 44% of Republicans, versus 39% of Democrats, believe Biden should continue his campaign, seeing him as an easier opponent.

Overall, three in five voters believe that Biden should end his campaign, according to the poll.

The poll indicates that 55% would be dissatisfied with Biden as the Democratic nominee, while 58% of Democrats would be content. Additionally, 15% of the public view both Trump and Biden unfavorably.

Trump is seen as more capable of uniting the country than Biden, with 38% favoring Trump and 31% favoring Biden. However, 46% of people blame Trump more for the risk of politically motivated violence, compared to 27% who blame Biden.

Among potential Democratic candidates, Vice President Kamala Harris holds the highest favorability at 35%. Harris is favored by 55% of Black Americans and 38% of Hispanic Americans, whereas Biden’s favorability among these groups is 49% and 35%, and Trump’s is 15% and 37%.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The poll also assessed Trump’s vice presidential pick, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), who has a 25% favorability rating, with 43% of respondents undecided. About 35% rated Trump’s selection of Vance positively.

The ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted from July 19-20, 2024, using a random national sample of 1,141 U.S. adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 points.

2024-07-21 16:34:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fcampaigns%2Fpresidential%2F3092614%2Ftrump-favorability-surges-majority-voters-want-biden-end-2024-bid%2F?w=600&h=450, Former President Donald Trump’s favorability rating has surged in the wake of the assassination attempt against him last weekend, according to a new poll showing the public effect of the historic near-miss shooting. Trump’s favorability rose to 40%, his highest in four years, with 51% still viewing him unfavorably, according to a new ABC/Ipsos poll.,

Former President Donald Trump’s favorability rating has surged in the wake of the assassination attempt against him last weekend, according to a new poll showing the public effect of the historic near-miss shooting.

Trump’s favorability rose to 40%, his highest in four years, with 51% still viewing him unfavorably, according to a new ABC/Ipsos poll. This follows a close call with a shooter at the July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and his record-breaking long speech Thursday evening at the Republican National Convention.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden‘s favorability remains at 32%, with 55% holding an unfavorable view. Concerns about Biden’s age and cognitive abilities after a recent debate have led 60% of Democrats to suggest he step aside. Surprisingly, 44% of Republicans, versus 39% of Democrats, believe Biden should continue his campaign, seeing him as an easier opponent.

Overall, three in five voters believe that Biden should end his campaign, according to the poll.

The poll indicates that 55% would be dissatisfied with Biden as the Democratic nominee, while 58% of Democrats would be content. Additionally, 15% of the public view both Trump and Biden unfavorably.

Trump is seen as more capable of uniting the country than Biden, with 38% favoring Trump and 31% favoring Biden. However, 46% of people blame Trump more for the risk of politically motivated violence, compared to 27% who blame Biden.

Among potential Democratic candidates, Vice President Kamala Harris holds the highest favorability at 35%. Harris is favored by 55% of Black Americans and 38% of Hispanic Americans, whereas Biden’s favorability among these groups is 49% and 35%, and Trump’s is 15% and 37%.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The poll also assessed Trump’s vice presidential pick, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), who has a 25% favorability rating, with 43% of respondents undecided. About 35% rated Trump’s selection of Vance positively.

The ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted from July 19-20, 2024, using a random national sample of 1,141 U.S. adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 points.

, Former President Donald Trump’s favorability rating has surged in the wake of the assassination attempt against him last weekend, according to a new poll showing the public effect of the historic near-miss shooting. Trump’s favorability rose to 40%, his highest in four years, with 51% still viewing him unfavorably, according to a new ABC/Ipsos poll. This follows a close call with a shooter at the July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and his record-breaking long speech Thursday evening at the Republican National Convention. Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump is introduced during the final night of the Republican National Convention Thursday, July 18, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) Meanwhile, President Joe Biden‘s favorability remains at 32%, with 55% holding an unfavorable view. Concerns about Biden’s age and cognitive abilities after a recent debate have led 60% of Democrats to suggest he step aside. Surprisingly, 44% of Republicans, versus 39% of Democrats, believe Biden should continue his campaign, seeing him as an easier opponent. Overall, three in five voters believe that Biden should end his campaign, according to the poll. The poll indicates that 55% would be dissatisfied with Biden as the Democratic nominee, while 58% of Democrats would be content. Additionally, 15% of the public view both Trump and Biden unfavorably. Trump is seen as more capable of uniting the country than Biden, with 38% favoring Trump and 31% favoring Biden. However, 46% of people blame Trump more for the risk of politically motivated violence, compared to 27% who blame Biden. Among potential Democratic candidates, Vice President Kamala Harris holds the highest favorability at 35%. Harris is favored by 55% of Black Americans and 38% of Hispanic Americans, whereas Biden’s favorability among these groups is 49% and 35%, and Trump’s is 15% and 37%. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The poll also assessed Trump’s vice presidential pick, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), who has a 25% favorability rating, with 43% of respondents undecided. About 35% rated Trump’s selection of Vance positively. The ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted from July 19-20, 2024, using a random national sample of 1,141 U.S. adults, with a margin of error of 3.1 points., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/TRUMP-VANCE-FAVORABILITY.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

Donald Trump outpaced Joe Biden in second-quarter fundraising, highlighting a surge in donations for Trump as concerns among Democratic donors about Biden’s prospects grow.

Republican-aligned groups raised $431.2 million between April and June, significantly more than pro-Biden groups, which garnered $332.4 million. This shift followed Trump’s May 30 conviction, a pivotal moment that united the Republican Party and boosted his fundraising efforts.

Trump-aligned groups tripled their contributions in the second quarter compared to the first quarter, when Biden’s groups led by $49 million. Before the conviction, Trump had been trailing Biden. However, the New York jury’s guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment changed the dynamic. Compared to the same period in 2020, Trump’s fundraising has more than doubled.

Biden’s fundraising likely suffered after the June 27 presidential debate and its aftermath, as concerns about his age and cognitive abilities grew, and multiple congressional Democrats called for him to step aside. The latest filings, which exclude July data, do not capture the financial effects of the debate.

Fundraisers have expressed concerns about dwindling donations, especially as prominent Democratic donors like Stewart Bainum, Mark Pincus, Reed Hastings, and Mike Moritz have suggested Biden step down.

By the end of June, Biden had $281 million on hand, while Trump had $336.2 million, according to the Financial Times. Trump has spent $85.5 million, about 26.4% of his funds, on legal fees as he faces a $464 million civil fraud judgment in New York and various criminal charges.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Pro-Trump groups are expected to outspend pro-Biden groups on advertisements from now until August. Super PACs Make America Great Again Inc and Preserve America, funded by billionaires like Tim Mellon and Miriam Adelson, are heavily advertising in key states.

Future Forward, a pro-Biden super PAC, has planned $130 million in ads starting in late August through Election Day.

2024-07-21 15:04:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fcampaigns%2Fpresidential%2F3092535%2Ftrump-campaign-reports-outpacing-biden-in-quarter-two-fundraising-surge-amid-presidents-donor-concerns%2F?w=600&h=450, Donald Trump outpaced Joe Biden in second-quarter fundraising, highlighting a surge in donations for Trump as concerns among Democratic donors about Biden’s prospects grow. Republican-aligned groups raised $431.2 million between April and June, significantly more than pro-Biden groups, which garnered $332.4 million. This shift followed Trump’s May 30 conviction, a pivotal moment that united the,

Donald Trump outpaced Joe Biden in second-quarter fundraising, highlighting a surge in donations for Trump as concerns among Democratic donors about Biden’s prospects grow.

Republican-aligned groups raised $431.2 million between April and June, significantly more than pro-Biden groups, which garnered $332.4 million. This shift followed Trump’s May 30 conviction, a pivotal moment that united the Republican Party and boosted his fundraising efforts.

Trump-aligned groups tripled their contributions in the second quarter compared to the first quarter, when Biden’s groups led by $49 million. Before the conviction, Trump had been trailing Biden. However, the New York jury’s guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment changed the dynamic. Compared to the same period in 2020, Trump’s fundraising has more than doubled.

Biden’s fundraising likely suffered after the June 27 presidential debate and its aftermath, as concerns about his age and cognitive abilities grew, and multiple congressional Democrats called for him to step aside. The latest filings, which exclude July data, do not capture the financial effects of the debate.

Fundraisers have expressed concerns about dwindling donations, especially as prominent Democratic donors like Stewart Bainum, Mark Pincus, Reed Hastings, and Mike Moritz have suggested Biden step down.

By the end of June, Biden had $281 million on hand, while Trump had $336.2 million, according to the Financial Times. Trump has spent $85.5 million, about 26.4% of his funds, on legal fees as he faces a $464 million civil fraud judgment in New York and various criminal charges.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Pro-Trump groups are expected to outspend pro-Biden groups on advertisements from now until August. Super PACs Make America Great Again Inc and Preserve America, funded by billionaires like Tim Mellon and Miriam Adelson, are heavily advertising in key states.

Future Forward, a pro-Biden super PAC, has planned $130 million in ads starting in late August through Election Day.

, Donald Trump outpaced Joe Biden in second-quarter fundraising, highlighting a surge in donations for Trump as concerns among Democratic donors about Biden’s prospects grow. Republican-aligned groups raised $431.2 million between April and June, significantly more than pro-Biden groups, which garnered $332.4 million. This shift followed Trump’s May 30 conviction, a pivotal moment that united the Republican Party and boosted his fundraising efforts. This combination of photos shows former President Donald Trump, Republican presidential candidate, left, and President Joe Biden during a presidential debate hosted by CNN, Thursday, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) Trump-aligned groups tripled their contributions in the second quarter compared to the first quarter, when Biden’s groups led by $49 million. Before the conviction, Trump had been trailing Biden. However, the New York jury’s guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment changed the dynamic. Compared to the same period in 2020, Trump’s fundraising has more than doubled. Biden’s fundraising likely suffered after the June 27 presidential debate and its aftermath, as concerns about his age and cognitive abilities grew, and multiple congressional Democrats called for him to step aside. The latest filings, which exclude July data, do not capture the financial effects of the debate. Fundraisers have expressed concerns about dwindling donations, especially as prominent Democratic donors like Stewart Bainum, Mark Pincus, Reed Hastings, and Mike Moritz have suggested Biden step down. By the end of June, Biden had $281 million on hand, while Trump had $336.2 million, according to the Financial Times. Trump has spent $85.5 million, about 26.4% of his funds, on legal fees as he faces a $464 million civil fraud judgment in New York and various criminal charges. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Pro-Trump groups are expected to outspend pro-Biden groups on advertisements from now until August. Super PACs Make America Great Again Inc and Preserve America, funded by billionaires like Tim Mellon and Miriam Adelson, are heavily advertising in key states. Future Forward, a pro-Biden super PAC, has planned $130 million in ads starting in late August through Election Day., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/trump-biden-2024-election-virginia-poll-vcu-july.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) urged President Joe Biden to end his reelection campaign, citing growing Democratic concerns about Biden’s electability following last month’s debate.

Manchin, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, emphasized the urgency of the situation during separate interviews on Sunday morning talk shows, saying he was making such calls “with a heavy heart,” according to his comments to ABC’s This Week.

“The first week after the debate, I thought the president needed time to evaluate and make a decision if he was going to at that time, and then I thought, well, we’d hear from my colleagues who are in very difficult, challenging areas of the country, whether it be in Congress, as far as their districts, or in the states, as far as my senators, and they’re speaking out now. And then when you see the donor class, basically, speaking up and saying that they went a different direction, if you will,” he said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Manchin similarly told CNN’s State of The Union that “it’s time to pass the torch to a new generation,” without specifying who the Democrats’ choice would be should Biden choose to bow out of the 2024 presidential race.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

2024-07-21 13:30:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fcampaigns%2Fpresidential%2F3092540%2Fmanchin-calls-biden-end-reelection-campaign-a-heavy-heart%2F?w=600&h=450, , , , I be crazy about ingredients, because they are smart., Meet this adorable plug-in!, , http://rockcontent.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/keyword-clustering-SEO.jpg, Manchin calls on Biden to end reelection campaign ‘with a heavy heart’, Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) urged President Joe Biden to end his reelection campaign, citing growing Democratic concerns about Biden’s electability following last month’s debate. Manchin, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, emphasized the urgency of the situation during separate interviews on Sunday morning talk shows, saying he was making such calls “with a heavy heart,” […], Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) urged President Joe Biden to end his reelection campaign, citing growing Democratic concerns about Biden’s electability following last month’s debate. Manchin, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, emphasized the urgency of the situation during separate interviews on Sunday morning talk shows, saying he was making such calls “with a heavy heart,”,

Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) urged President Joe Biden to end his reelection campaign, citing growing Democratic concerns about Biden’s electability following last month’s debate.

Manchin, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, emphasized the urgency of the situation during separate interviews on Sunday morning talk shows, saying he was making such calls “with a heavy heart,” according to his comments to ABC’s This Week.

“The first week after the debate, I thought the president needed time to evaluate and make a decision if he was going to at that time, and then I thought, well, we’d hear from my colleagues who are in very difficult, challenging areas of the country, whether it be in Congress, as far as their districts, or in the states, as far as my senators, and they’re speaking out now. And then when you see the donor class, basically, speaking up and saying that they went a different direction, if you will,” he said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Manchin similarly told CNN’s State of The Union that “it’s time to pass the torch to a new generation,” without specifying who the Democrats’ choice would be should Biden choose to bow out of the 2024 presidential race.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

, Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) urged President Joe Biden to end his reelection campaign, citing growing Democratic concerns about Biden’s electability following last month’s debate. Manchin, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, emphasized the urgency of the situation during separate interviews on Sunday morning talk shows, saying he was making such calls “with a heavy heart,” according to his comments to ABC’s This Week. “The first week after the debate, I thought the president needed time to evaluate and make a decision if he was going to at that time, and then I thought, well, we’d hear from my colleagues who are in very difficult, challenging areas of the country, whether it be in Congress, as far as their districts, or in the states, as far as my senators, and they’re speaking out now. And then when you see the donor class, basically, speaking up and saying that they went a different direction, if you will,” he said. On @CNNSotu, @Sen_JoeManchin tells @jaketapper that “I came to the decision with a heavy heart that it’s time to pass the torch to a new generation” and that President Biden should step aside. pic.twitter.com/glujXQ0hJf — State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) July 21, 2024 CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Manchin similarly told CNN’s State of The Union that “it’s time to pass the torch to a new generation,” without specifying who the Democrats’ choice would be should Biden choose to bow out of the 2024 presidential race. This is a developing story and will be updated., Photo Credit: , , www.washingtonexaminer.com, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3092540/manchin-calls-biden-end-reelection-campaign-a-heavy-heart/, Presidential,2024 Elections,Biden,Campaign,Congress,Joe Manchin,West Virginia, Presidential,2024 Elections,Biden,Campaign,Congress,Joe Manchin,West Virginia, West Virginia, Read More, , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/AP23272414967265-1024×591.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Kaelan Deese,

Lawyers for Hunter Biden on Thursday asked a federal judge to toss his criminal gun case conviction, citing a recent concurrence by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the dismissal this week of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Biden’s legal counsel pointed to those separate rulings in a motion that argued U.S. Attorney David Weiss, the special counsel who investigated President Joe Biden’s son, was unconstitutionally appointed.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Special counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday appealed a federal judge’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.

“The United States of America hereby gives notice that it appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order of the District Court entered on July 15,” according to a notice on the docket from Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute the case against Trump.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The appeal comes just two days after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case in response to a motion by Trump that argued Smith was improperly appointed. The special counsel’s office previously signaled plans to appeal her order in a statement Monday evening.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

The judge presiding over the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump made waves Monday after she dismissed the indictment based on the “unconstitutional” appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, raising questions about the future of Smith’s two cases against Trump.

The decision by the Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon also leaves lingering inquiries about the proper means to appoint special counsels for federal criminal cases. Her decision isn’t final, and a spokesman from the special counsel’s office said Monday afternoon the Department of Justice has authorized the office to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Legal experts such as former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani described Cannon’s ruling as “stunning” in a statement to the Washington Examiner, saying Cannon “could have easily dismissed the case on grounds of presidential immunity instead of saying Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.”

Cannon’s decision comes just two weeks after the Supreme Court decided the immunity dispute in Trump v. United States, which separated presidential acts into three buckets: clear immunity from prosecution, clearly not immune, and unclear. However, she only leaned partially on that ruling in her written decision, citing a portion of a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Here are the top questions swirling after the shocking classified documents case dismissal.

How did Cannon come to her determination?

The dismissal of the 40-count indictment in Florida clung to the fact that no statute authorized the appointment of Smith and his deputies, and it rested on violations of the Constitution’s Appointments and Appropriations clauses.

“The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers,” Cannon wrote in a 93-page ruling.

Trump’s second challenge was rooted in the Appropriations Clause, which prohibits “any money from being ‘drawn from the Treasury’ unless such funding has been appropriated by an act of Congress,” Cannon added.

Article 2 of the Constitution creates three categories of federal employees. The first is principal officers, which are people who answer directly to the president. The second are inferior officers, which gives department heads the authority to appoint such officials. The third is simply regular employees hired to work in the government.

Under the interpretation of Article 2 by Cannon, Smith would fall into the third category because his time with the DOJ between 2015 and September 2017 was as an assistant U.S. attorney, which did not require Senate confirmation. Smith resigned after the nomination of Donald Cochran, who became the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee under the Trump administration. From there, he went on to work as chief prosecutor for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in 2018 and stepped down in November 2022.

Are all special counsels unconstitutional?

The decision by Cannon prompted questions about the future of past and current special prosecutors and the mechanisms by which they are appointed and funded in the United States. Legal experts say Cannon did not totally overturn the practice of appointing special counsels.

“Even though she says it’s limited to this case, her ruling casts doubt upon the appointment of special counsels in other cases, most notably Hunter Biden,” Rahmani said, referencing U.S. Attorney David Weiss’s position as special counsel to the Hunter Biden criminal investigation in Delaware.

Rahmani expressed the viewpoint that even the appointment of Weiss could be challenged by the first son, who was recently convicted of three felony counts for lying on a federal firearms form. However, there likely isn’t a one-to-one comparison between Smith and Weiss because of one key distinction: Congress’s role in appointments and appropriations.

“Weiss was already the sitting Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney,” James Burnham, president of Vallecito Capital and a former clerk to Justice Neil Gorsuch, said.

Burnham emphasized that “nothing would stop the attorney general from giving special counsel status to an existing U.S. attorney.”

“What this means is you can’t pull somebody from just off the street and bring them into the department to serve as a special counsel. Weiss is unaffected by this opinion,” Burnham said.

By contrast, Smith is “neither a principal nor an inferior officer,” according to Richard Kelsey, a local Virginia attorney who spoke to the Washington Examiner.

What does the appeals process look like for both of Smith’s federal indictments?

Any appeal is likely to be resolved after the presidential election, all but guaranteeing that Trump would not face trial until 2025 at the earliest. If Trump is elected president in November, he could order his attorney general to dismiss the case, as well as the 2020 election subversion case.

However, some legal experts, including Rahmani, have suggested there could be a chance for the 11th Circuit to overturn Cannon’s decision.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if her order is overturned by the 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas is the only justice who seems persuaded by this type of argument,” Rahmani said.

For the classified documents case, Trump could appeal an 11th Circuit decision to reverse Cannon’s dismissal of the case. From there, he could ask for a rehearing en banc, or before the full court, and he may also seek Supreme Court review as a last resort.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Washington, D.C., judge who is presiding over the 2020 election subversion case, has not yet been presented with a bid to void Smith’s special counsel status, nor has she even resumed progress on the pretrial stages of that case following the immunity decision.

Chutkan at some point will likely have to weigh in on the issue of Smith’s appointment by Garland, and if she rules against Trump, the defense does not enjoy the benefit of appealing an unfavorable decision until after a potential trial concludes, legal experts told the Washington Examiner.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

For now, court watchers will wait in earnest to see how the 11th Circuit rules and whether the Supreme Court once again is compelled to wade into Trump’s legal travails over this important Article 2 question.

“If the 11th Circuit agrees with Judge Cannon, then the Supreme Court will almost certainly take the case. If the 11th Circuit reverses Judge Cannon, then I think it’s a closer call,” Burnham said, noting there could still be an appetite to review the case even if Trump’s defense loses at the appeals court.

After the stunning dismissal of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice is vowing to pursue an appeal.

“The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel,” said Peter Carr, a spokesman for special counsel Jack Smith‘s office. “The Justice Department has authorized the Special Counsel to appeal the court’s order.”

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled Monday morning that no statute authorized the appointment of Smith and his deputies, who were appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, and her decision cited violations of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause.

“The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers,” Cannon wrote in a 93-page ruling.

Trump’s second challenge was rooted in the Appropriations Clause, which prohibits “any money from being ‘drawn from the Treasury’ unless such funding has been appropriated by an act of Congress,” Cannon added.

Although Smith’s office has not yet filed its appeal, that effort will head up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which has a mixed-body of Democratic- and Republican-appointed judges and has previously overturned Cannon in the case, such as over her decision to appoint a special master to scrutinize documents investigators seized from Mar-a-Lago.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Following Trump’s motion claiming Smith was illegally appointed, Cannon agreed with the defense counsel that she was not bound by every aspect of the unanimous 1974 Supreme Court opinion U.S.A. v. Nixon, which forced President Richard Nixon to turn in tape recordings to a federal court and other subpoenaed material to the Watergate scandal.

Cannon’s move came weeks after she allowed outside groups of legal experts, both for and against Trump’s argument, to present arguments over Smith’s appointment.

A Florida man charged with unlawfully “parading” during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol asked the Supreme Court this week to hear his appeal, a move that could affect more than 400 cases surrounding the riot if they decide to hear the case.

The Supreme Court just last month dealt a blow to the Justice Department after it narrowed the scope of how the Department of Justice can apply an obstruction statute prosecutors used to charge more than 120 defendants who participated in the Jan. 6 riot. Now, 57-year-old John Nassif is seeking to appeal his conviction on a more common charge levied against defendants for parading and picketing inside the building, according to a new filing.

Nassif, who was convicted of other misdemeanors, including disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building and violent entry in a Capitol building, was sentenced to seven months in prison despite prosecutors asking for 10 to 16 months. He has since been released, though his public defenders say there are urgent questions about the application of his charge under Section 5104(e)(2)(G), which makes it a crime to willfully and knowingly “parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.”

U.S District Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, previously rejected Nassif’s effort to dismiss the parading charge pretrial, finding that courts had ruled the Capitol is a “nonpublic forum” where the government may “limit First Amendment activities so long as the restrictions are ‘reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum and are viewpoint neutral.’”

When the matter reached the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit, a three-judge panel composed of Judge Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins, both former President Barack Obama appointees, and Bradley Garcia, appointed by President Joe Biden, found that Nassif’s counsel incorrectly argued that the parading and picketing statute was “so unclear that it is entirely invalid and cannot be applied to anyone, including him.”

Nassif’s petition states that there is a conflict between how the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals view the legality of demonstrations in the Capitol building. The D.C. Court of Appeals has held that the Capitol Rotunda is a public forum where speech restrictions must be narrowly tailored. The D.C. Circuit, however, classified the Capitol Buildings as a nonpublic forum, allowing broader restrictions.

The panel came to its determination by citing cases such as Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Board (2000) and Lederman v. United States (2002), which classify the Capitol buildings as nonpublic forums. This classification, supported by the Supreme Court rulings in Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (1985) and United States v. Kokinda (1990), allows for reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions on speech to maintain order and security within these buildings.

But in cases such as Wheelock v. United States (1988) and Hasty v. United States (1995), the D.C. Court of Appeals determined that peaceful demonstrations and symbolic expressions should be protected, provided they do not significantly disrupt congressional activities.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The Supreme Court requires approval from four out of the nine justices to grant a case to hear oral arguments on the merits, and it could take months for the justices to determine whether to take up the case. Two legal experts who spoke to the Washington Examiner expressed some doubts about the likelihood of justices wading back into disputes over the contentious riot after ruling on the United States v. Fischer case in June. That ruling elevated the burden of proof needed for the DOJ to prosecute defendants for obstructing an official proceeding.

There have been more than 1,450 people charged in connection to the Jan. 6 riot, and the most common charge is the illegal parading and picketing misdemeanor. More than 460 people are facing such charges, according to the DOJ.