Ken Paxton files second lawsuit against TikTok for exposing minors to explicit content
The attorney general argues that the social media company violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by listing itself as appropriate for children.
Court puts plea deal on pause for 9/11 mastermind KSM: 23 years later, justice for terrorists is delayed again
A federal appeals court has delayed Friday’s scheduled military court hearing where suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-conspirators were expected to plead guilty as part of a deal negotiated with prosecutors. The pause, though welcomed by the many who opposed the plea deals, prolongs a decades-long crusade for justice by the victims’ families. The plea deals, which would have three 9/11 terrorists avoid the death penalty and face life in prison, have drawn sharp outcry from the public and even prompted a dispute within the Biden administration to undo them. On New Year’s Eve, a military appeals court shot down Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin‘s effort to block the deal between military prosecutors and defense lawyers, saying Austin did not have the power to cancel plea agreements. Then, on Wednesday, the Department of Justice appealed that ruling. Specifically, the court opinion said the plea deals reached by military prosecutors and defense attorneys were valid and enforceable and that Austin exceeded his authority when he later tried to nullify them. The defense now has until Jan. 17 to offer a full response to the Department of Justice’s request to have the plea deals thrown out. Government prosecutors then have until Jan. 22 for a rebuttal, with possible oral arguments on the issue to follow. The plea deals, offered to Mohammed and two co-conspirators, were meant as a way to wrap up the quest for justice to those who have been waiting more than two decades to see the terrorists that killed their loved ones convicted. They would allow prosecutors to avoid going to trial. But why did the government settle for a plea deal after 23 years of building a case in the first place? BIDEN ADMIN SENDS 11 GUANTANAMO DETAINEES TO OMAN FOR RESETTLEMENT “I haven’t spoken to a single person who thinks these plea deals were a good idea. Most people are horrified,” said Brett Eagleson, president of 9/11 Justice. “It’s our thought that this was rescinded in name only and like it was done right before the election. So, Austin was trying to save any attempts at sort of a political loss on this,” said Eagleson. In its appeal this week, the government says, “Respondents are charged with perpetrating the most egregious criminal act on American soil in modern history — the 9/11 terrorist attacks. “The military commission judge intends to enforce pretrial plea agreements that will deprive the government and the American people of a public trial as to the respondents’ guilt and the possibility of capital punishment, despite the fact that the Secretary of Defense has lawfully withdrawn those agreements,” the appeal said. “The harm to the government and the public will be irreparable once the judge accepts the pleas, which he is scheduled to do in hearings beginning on January 10, 2025.” The appeal also noted that once the military commission accepts the guilty pleas, there is likely no way to return to the status quo. Defense lawyers for the suspected 9/11 perpetrators argued Austin’s attempts to throw out the plea deals that his own military negotiated and approved were the latest developments in the “fitful” and “negligent” mishandling of the case that has dragged on for more than two decades. If the plea deal is upheld, the architects of the attacks that killed 2,976, plus thousands more who died after inhaling toxic dust in rescue missions, will not be put to death for their crimes. “You would think that the government has an opportunity to make right, and you would think that they would be salivating at the opportunity to bring us justice,” Eagleson said. “Rather than doing that, they shroud everything in secrecy. They’re rushing to get these plea deals done, and they’re marching forward despite the objections of us. “We want transparency. We want the discovery that’s been produced. In this case, we want to know who are these guys they’re talking to? On what grounds does our government think that these guys are guilty? Why can’t they share that with us? It’s been 23 years. You can’t tell me that you need to protect national security sources and methods because, quite frankly, if we’re using the same sources and methods that we were 23 years ago, we have bigger fish to fry.” The government opted to try five men in one case instead of each individually. Mohammed is accused of masterminding the plot and proposing it to Usama bin Laden. Two others allegedly helped the hijackers with finances. In 2023, a medical panel concluded that Ramzi bin al-Shibh was not competent to stand trial and removed him from the case. Mohammed, Mustafa al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash, are all part of the plea agreement that will allow them to avoid the death penalty. One other will go to trial. “The military commission has really been a failure,” said John Ryan, a retired agent on the FBI’s joint terrorism task force in New York. TOP REPUBLICANS ROLL OUT BILL THAT WOULD UNDO 9/11 PLEA DEALS Hundreds of people have been convicted of terrorism charges in the U.S. Ramzi Yousef, the perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was convicted in 1997. But the military commission’s 9/11 case has faced a revolving door of judges, who then each take time to get up to speed with the 400,000 pages and exhibits in the case. Col. Matthew N. McCall of the Air Force, the fourth judge to preside over hearings in the case, intends to retire in the first quarter of 2025 before any trial begins. McCall was assigned to the case in August 2021, and he held only two rounds of hearings before suspending the proceedings in March 2022 for plea negotiations. Another judge would have to get up to speed, and it could be another five to 10 years before a conviction, according to Ryan, who observed many of the hearings at Guantánamo. “You have parents and grandparents [of victims] that now are in their 80s, you know, and want to see justice
Trump says he respects Supreme Court’s decision to deny his request to stop sentencing, vows to appeal
President-elect Donald Trump said he respects the Supreme Court’s decision to deny his request to stop his sentencing in New York v. Trump from moving forward, but said Thursday night he will appeal, while stressing that “lawfare” has been an “attack on the Republican Party.” Trump’s comments came just moments after the Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency petition to block his sentencing from taking place on Friday, Jan. 10. The sentencing was scheduled by New York Judge Juan Merchan. SUPREME COURT DENIES TRUMP ATTEMPT TO STOP SENTENCING IN NEW YORK V. TRUMP Merchan, last week, said he would not sentence the president-elect to prison, but rather issue a sentence of an “unconditional discharge,” which means there would be no punishment imposed. “I’m the first president and probably one of the first candidates in history that’s under attack with a gag order where I’m not allowed to speak about something,” Trump said during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago Thursday night with Republican governors. “This is a long way from finished and I respect the court’s opinion.” Trump said he thought the court’s ruling was a “very good opinion for us,” noting that the justices “invited the appeal.” “We’ll see how it all works out,” he said. “I think it’s going to work out well.” But Trump reflected on the “lawfare” that he has been victim of, saying that it “was an attack on the Republican Party.” TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE “This was an attack on the Republican candidate who just won an election by record numbers—the highest number of Republican votes by far ever gotten, and we won all the swing states, we won the popular vote by millions of people,” he said. “They tried to stop that from happening—they tried to stop this election from happening or to bloody somebody up so badly they couldn’t win.” Trump said that “the people got it and we won by the largest number.” Trump filed an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to prevent his Jan. 10 sentencing, scheduled by Judge Juan Merchan, from taking place. “The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal,” the order states. “Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing,” the court ruled. NEW YORK COURT ASSIGNS NEW JUDGE IN TRUMP CIVIL FRAUD CASE STEMMING FROM AG LETITIA JAMES’ PROBE The order also noted that “Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.” Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson. Trump’s sentencing is now expected to move forward, with the president-elect expected to appear virtually for the proceeding, scheduled for 9:30 am Friday. Merchan set Trump’s sentencing in New York v. Trump for Jan. 10 after a jury found the now-president-elect guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree, stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and has appealed the ruling but was rejected last week by Merchan. Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of “lawfare” promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
Court names new judge in Trump civil fraud case before reassigning previous judge hours later
FIRST ON FOX: A New York Court assigned a new judge to preside over the civil fraud case against President-elect Trump brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, seemingly replacing Judge Arthur Engoron, but hours later, the court put him back on the case, sources close to Trump’s legal team told Fox News Digital. The case and the trial were handled by Judge Arthur Engoron, who was accused by Trump allies of acting with bias against the president-elect, his family and his company. TRUMP’S $454M JUDGMENT BOND SLASHED BY MORE THAN HALF IN APPEALS COURT RULING Sources familiar told Fox News Digital the court sent out an automated email at around 12:45pm on Thursday, notifying the parties that it had assigned New York County Supreme Court Justice Judith McMahon of Staten Island to the case. But several hours later, at 4:12pm, attorneys on the case received another automated message from the court system notifying them that Judge Arthur Engoron was assigned back to the case. A source close to Trump’s legal team told Fox News Digital that they are concerned with the back-and-forth. The case is pending on appeal. After the appeals court issues its decision, the case will be remanded to a lower court, which Engoron presided over during the trial. NEW YORK APPEALS COURT APPEARS RECEPTIVE TO REVERSING OR REDUCING $454M TRUMP CIVIL FRAUD JUDGMENT Engoron, after a weeks-long non-jury civil fraud trial that began in October 2023, ruled last year that Trump and defendants were liable for “persistent and repeated fraud,” “falsifying business records,” “issuing false financial statements,” “conspiracy to falsify false financial statements,” “insurance fraud,” and “conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.” But before the trial began, Engoron issued a summary judgment against Trump, making the subsequent trial a case over the penalty to be paid. Notably, during the case, Engoron allowed the value of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago to be listed at $18 million. President Trump disputes that valuation, saying the property is worth 50 to 100 times more than Engoron’s estimation. And real estate insiders and developers argued the property could list at more than $300 million. In his ruling in the case last year, Engoron took a shot at Trump, criticizing him for his participation in the trial, stating that he “rarely responded to the questions asked, and he frequently interjected long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial.” ERIC TRUMP CONDEMNS NY ‘SET-UP’: MY FATHER BUILT NYC SKYLINE AND THIS IS HIS THANKS “His refusal to answer the questions directly, or in some cases, at all, severely compromised his credibility,” Engoron wrote. Over the course of the trial late last year, Trump, Trump allies, Republicans and legal experts repeatedly criticized Engoron, who throughout his career has exclusively donated to Democrats, over his handling of the case. Engoron is also reportedly subject to a probe over unsolicited advice he received on the case. Trump and his family denied any wrongdoing, with the former president saying his assets had been undervalued. Trump’s legal team insisted that his financial statements had disclaimers and made it clear to banks that they should conduct their own assessments. TRUMP VOWS TO FIGHT NEW YORK AG CASE ‘ALL THE WAY UP TO THE US SUPREME COURT,’ AS DEADLINE TO POST $454M LOOMS Trump appealed the $454 million judgment. The appeal is pending before the New York Appeals Court. Judges on the New York appeals court appeared receptive last year to the possibility of reversing or reducing the $454 million civil fraud judgment. The president’s attorneys called Engoron’s ruling “draconian, unlawful, and unconstitutional.” Trump attorney D. John Sauer, the incoming solicitor general, argued that James’ lawsuit stretched New York consumer protection laws and said there were “no victims” and “no complaints” about Trump’s business from lenders and insurers. Sauer said the case “involves a clear-cut violation of the statute of limitations,” pointing to transactions used in the non-jury civil fraud trial that dated back more than a decade. Sauer said if the verdict is not overturned, “people can’t do business in real estate” without fear. Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to reflect additional information.
Supreme Court denies Trump attempt to stop sentencing in New York v. Trump
The United States Supreme Court has denied President-elect Trump’s petition to block his Friday sentencing in New York v. Trump. Trump filed an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to prevent his Jan. 10 sentencing, scheduled by Judge Juan Merchan, from taking place. “The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal,” the order states. “Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing,” the court ruled. The order also noted that “Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.” Trump needed five votes in order to have his request granted. The note on the order suggests Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson. Trump’s sentencing is now expected to move forward, with the president-elect expected to appear virtually for the proceeding, scheduled for 9:30 am Friday. Merchan set Trump’s sentencing in New York v. Trump for Jan. 10 after a jury found the now-president-elect guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree, stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and has appealed the ruling but was rejected last week by Merchan. TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE Trump’s lawyers, in their petition to the high court, said it should “immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary.” “The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application,” the filing states. Trump’s attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court’s ruling on presidential immunity. JUDGE DENIES TRUMP MOTION TO STOP NY CRIMINAL CASE SENTENCING The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts. Trump’s legal team is arguing Merchan should not be permitted to move any further and said their appeal of the ruling “will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit.” Merchan set the sentencing date last week but said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison. Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to “impose any sentence of incarceration,” but rather a sentence of an “unconditional discharge,” which means there would be no punishment imposed. Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on Jan. 20. Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of “lawfare” promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
Trump huddling with Republican governors at Mar-a-Lago dinner
President-elect Trump is hosting a group of Republican governors for dinner at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, Thursday evening. The gathering comes a week and a half before the former and future president is inaugurated Jan. 20 and takes over the White House. The meeting gives Trump a chance to speak with the GOP governors who will likely play an integral role in carrying out the Trump agenda in his second administration, including his push for mass deportation of immigrants with criminal records. Among those attending the dinner are governors Ron DeSantis of Florida, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia and Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Fox News confirmed. AMERICA’S NEWEST GOVERNOR TAKES PAGE FROM TRUMP WITH DOGE-LIKE EFFORT DeSantis, a one-time Trump ally who clashed with the former president in 2023 and early last year during a contentious 2024 GOP presidential nomination race, mended relations a bit with the former president after the primary season. DeSantis endorsed Trump and helped raise money for the Republican nominee’s general election campaign. THIS NEW GOVERNOR LOOKS FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION Reynolds, the conservative two-term governor, drew Trump’s ire during the presidential primaries by endorsing DeSantis and serving as his top surrogate during the Iowa caucuses. “Excited to meet with President @realDonaldTrump tonight at Mar-a-Lago,” Reynolds wrote in a social media post. “I stand ready to help enact his agenda of Making America Safe, Prosperous, and Great Again!” Youngkin, who mulled a 2024 White House run of his own before deciding against it, teamed up with Trump a couple of times during the general election campaign. Politico was first to report on Trump’s dinner with the governors.