Good morning, and welcome to The Epoch Times News Brief for Friday, April 5, 2024. I’m Bill Thomas.
Judge Rejects Trump Motion to Dismiss Documents Case, Criticizes Special Counsel Request as ‘Unjust’
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon denied former President Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss an indictment, which accuses him of improperly handling classified documents.Judge Cannon stated that the charges do not depend on the Presidential Records Act, indicating that this statute is not essential for defining the offenses alleged.
President Trump’s team had put forward four motions to get the charges dropped, yet the court only heard oral arguments on two of them last month. Among the rejected motions was one arguing the charges were too vague to be constitutionally valid. The defense’s reliance on the Presidential Records Act to invalidate the indictment was dismissed as irrelevant by the judge.
At the heart of this case is that President Trump is being charged under a law that makes it illegal to have unauthorized possession of documents related to national defense. However, the Presidential Records Act does not make any mention of how national defense or classified information should be treated.
Judge Cannon has directed that jury instructions should be prepared to address the issue of whether President Trump could claim the documents as “personal” under the Presidential Records Act, a move opposed by the prosecution.
Judge Cannon emphasized that her request for jury instructions does not lock in a final interpretation of the law but seeks to clarify the positions of both sides for trial purposes. She also mentioned that both parties are free to seek appeals if they wish.
Judge Urged to Reject Trump’s Motion to Dismiss Classified Docs Case
Judge Cannon, overseeing the classified documents case against President Trump, has allowed a request for an amicus brief. This brief, submitted by a coalition including former prosecutors, officials, constitutional lawyers, and organizations, challenges President Trump’s attempt to have the charges dismissed.They argue against President Trump’s claim that Mr. Smith’s appointment and funding were improper.
The debate hinges on whether Mr. Smith was appropriately appointed as an “inferior officer” by Attorney General Merrick Garland. President Trump’s legal team contends that Mr. Smith’s role is invalid, arguing that neither the U.S. Constitution nor Congress had officially established the special counsel’s office. They said that at most, Mr. Smith is an employee and not an “officer” under the statutes Mr. Garland cites in making his appointment.
They also accused Mr. Smith’s office of being indirectly financed by the Biden administration.
Mr. Smith’s brief refutes these claims. Judge Cannon has set an April 17 deadline for both sides to address the concerns raised in the amicus brief.
Georgia Judge Rules on Trump 1st Amendment Challenge
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has turned down a request by President Trump to drop charges against him, arguing that President Trump’s First Amendment rights do not apply.President Trump faces charges along with 14 others of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act for their actions challenging the 2020 election results. He argued that everything he said listed in the indictment was protected by the First Amendment.
However, Judge McAfee ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t shield speech that’s part of “criminal conduct, fraud, or speech presenting an imminent threat that the government can prevent.”
President Trump is charged on 10 counts, including the RICO charge and various conspiracy charges.
The judge also rejected the defense’s arguments that the laws cited in the indictment were unconstitutional and that the charges breached the right to free association.
The trial, which could last between three to five months, might begin in August as suggested by the prosecutors. President Trump’s lawyer Steve Sadow has expressed concerns about the trial’s timing potentially conflicting with the general election.
Now, let’s discuss a recent decision from Nebraska that’s caught national attention.
Nebraska Lawmakers Reject Proposed Winner-Take-All Electoral Vote System
On April 3, Nebraska state lawmakers voted against a move to change the state’s unique Electoral College system to a winner-take-all approach. This proposed change, which had the backing of President Trump, was defeated in an 8–36 procedural vote by the Legislature.Nebraska is one of two states that don’t automatically give all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the state’s overall vote. Instead, it allocates its electoral votes according to the congressional district method. Of the state’s five total votes, one each goes to the winners of the three congressional districts, and the statewide winner collects the remaining two.
This method was adopted in 1996 and has led to the state’s electoral votes being split between candidates from different parties in 2008 and 2020, with Democrats benefiting from the split both times.
For President Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, that one extra vote could make all the difference in his quest to defeat President Joe Biden this November.
The effort to change the voting system had strong support from notable Republicans, including Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. He said that the change would “ensure our state speaks with one unified voice in presidential elections.” Mr. Pillen called on his “fellow Republicans in the Legislature to pass this bill to my desk so I can sign it into law.”
However, Democrats criticized it as an attack on democracy.
Despite Republicans holding a supermajority in Nebraska’s officially nonpartisan Legislature, there was not enough support among them to proceed with the change to a winner-take-all system. Republican state Sen. Mike McDonnell, who had recently switched his party affiliation due to his pro-life views, was among those not supporting the move. Following the unsuccessful vote, Republican state Sen. Julie Slama expressed her frustration over the outcome on social media.
Former Trump Prosecutor Nathan Wade Accused of Not Paying Child Support
Nathan Wade, a former special prosecutor in President Trump’s Georgia case, faces accusations from his estranged wife, Jocelyn Wade. She accuses him of failing to pay child support and an urgent medical procedure she needs, which costs over $4,000, due to severe health issues.Ms. Wade also says her condition is getting worse and may require emergency care.
Besides, Ms. Wade claims Mr. Wade has stopped paying child support. This has left her with less than $1,000 a month. She said that she can’t work due to her poor health condition.
Mr. Wade has not responded to these allegations. In a December 2023 court filing, Mr. Wade’s attorney, M. Scott Kimbrough, denied prior allegations made by Ms. Wade. It said that he provided her with the “means of financial support ... and continues to provide financial support” to her.
Although he is no longer part of the Trump case, these new allegations could add pressure on District Attorney Fani Willis’s case against President Trump and his co-defendants.
President Trump’s legal team is challenging Ms. Willis’s role in the case. They have appealed to remove her from the case.
Could Your Morning Coffee Protect Against Obesity and Joint Problems?
New research suggests that caffeine might do more than just help us stay alert and focused.According to a study in BMC Medicine, there might be added health benefits, especially regarding weight and joint health.
Researchers looked into the genetic relationships between caffeine consumption and its effects by examining genetic data from about 10,000 people. Their analysis aimed to see how caffeine impacts body weight, osteoarthritis, and osteoarthrosis.
The study’s findings are promising, showing that higher caffeine levels in the bloodstream could be linked to lower body weight and a reduced risk of developing joint problems.
However, it’s important to note that the study primarily used genetic data, which means it couldn’t directly prove that drinking caffeine causes these benefits. Therefore, more research is necessary to fully understand how caffeine affects our health and its potential for treating certain conditions.
While caffeine has been noted for its role in metabolism and weight management, its relationship with obesity isn’t straightforward. The inconsistency in data suggests that we shouldn’t rush to increase our caffeine intake for weight loss purposes.
Despite these uncertainties, the study also points to other potential health benefits of caffeine, such as lowering the risk of mortality, offering protection against certain brain disorders, and improving liver health.
We recently heard from Theresa who says: “Bravo! I love Epoch Times. This morning was the first time I listened to audio news with Bill and I absolutely loved his presentation. Made my morning not only informed but smiling with his last comment that you can listen anywhere except perhaps underwater.”
Danny Reynolds wrote in to say: “Thank you Bill Thomas and team. Your audio program enables my wife and I to share the Epoch News content as we get ready for the day. Anytime we can share our time together reinforces our 45 year bond.”
We also heard from Kathy, Aaron, and J.S.
We’re portable, on-demand, and you can get caught up on all the important issues very rapidly and from pretty much anywhere, everyday, except if you’re locked in a bank vault somewhere.
Thanks again for tuning in, and for all of us here at The Epoch Times News Brief, I’m Bill Thomas. Have a spectacular day.
