The U.S. Supreme Court announced a ruling, denying President-elect Trump’s request to halt his upcoming sentencing in the controversial “hush money” case led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. This decision saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joining forces with the court’s liberal Justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—in rejecting the motion. Trump had filed an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, aiming to stop his January 10 sentencing set by Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan, which falls just weeks before inauguration day.

What a backstab ruling from Amy Coney Barrett –  siding with Democrats in opposition of Trump.

The official order from the court stated that “The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons.” It highlighted that any alleged evidence issues from Trump’s state-court trial could be addressed during a regular appeal process. Additionally, it pointed out that the burden of sentencing on Trump’s presidential duties was minimal since the trial court intended only an unconditional discharge after a brief virtual session.

Interestingly, Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh were in favor of granting Trump’s request. However, without securing five votes needed for a delay, it became apparent that Chief Justice Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with their liberal colleagues in denying Trump’s application. Consequently, Trump’s sentencing is expected to proceed as planned with him appearing virtually at 9:30 a.m. on Friday—a detail confirmed by Fox News.

Trump faced conviction on 34 counts of “falsifying business records,” a case surrounded by claims of political bias and selective prosecution. To elevate what would typically be considered misdemeanor bookkeeping errors to felony charges against Trump, DA Bragg argued that Trump conspired to falsify records related to payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to hide another crime. Notably, this supposed underlying crime was never identified by Bragg’s office. Moreover, Judge Juan Merchan told jurors they didn’t need consensus on what this unidentified crime might have been.

Vice President Kamala Harris found herself in an uncomfortable spot as she watched former President Barack Obama share lighthearted moments with President-elect Donald Trump at Jimmy Carter’s funeral. This scene unfolded just over two months after her staggering election loss against Trump.

The banter between Trump and Obama was evident, given the solemn atmosphere of the Baptist service honoring Carter. Seated a row ahead of Harris, the two ex-presidents appeared at ease, exchanging whispers that brought smiles and laughter. Harris, sensing movement behind her, turned to see Trump speaking to Obama and quickly refocused her gaze forward with a sigh that spoke volumes about her frustration.

C-SPAN captured these interactions from another angle, highlighting the cheerful exchange between Trump and Obama. Meanwhile, former First Lady Melania Trump remained composed beside her husband.

WATCH:

It must suck to have your own party turn their backs on you after they threw you to the wolves! I can’t say I feel bad for Kamala though. She made her bed, now she can cackle in it.

Fani Willis, the District Attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, finds herself in hot water after a judge ordered her to pay $21,578 in attorney’s fees and litigation costs. This ruling comes as a result of her office’s failure to adhere to Georgia’s Open Records Act (ORA). The decision was handed down by Judge Robert McBurney following a legal battle initiated by Judicial Watch, an organization that sought access to Willis’s communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6 Committee.

The issue began in August 2023 when Judicial Watch filed a request under the ORA. Initially, Willis’s office claimed no relevant records existed. However, evidence found by Judicial Watch suggested otherwise, leading them to file a lawsuit in March 2024. Court documents reveal that Willis’s office repeatedly denied having any responsive documents even after the lawsuit was underway. It wasn’t until December 2, 2024, that the DA’s office conducted what they called a “diligent search,” which suddenly uncovered records previously claimed not to exist. These records were then deemed exempt from disclosure by her office.

BREAKING: A judge in Georgia just ordered Fani Willis to pay over $21,000 to Judicial Watch to cover their legal fees in the lawsuit they brought against her to expose her collusion with the Biden DOJ to "get Trump."

The walls have fully closed in on Fani, and I bet she fully… pic.twitter.com/EgLqSzczBW

— George (@BehizyTweets) January 7, 2025

In one instance of compliance, Willis’s office provided Judicial Watch with a letter sent to the January 6 Committee. However, this letter had already been identified by Judicial Watch as improperly withheld. The unsigned and undated memo highlighted what the court saw as a clear violation of the ORA. Judge McBurney issued his order on January 3, criticizing how Willis handled the records request. He pointed out that her office did not search for any records until legally compelled to do so and even then failed to thoroughly examine emails or case files.

Judge McBurney expressed his concerns in his ruling: “This response was perplexing and eventually suspicious to Plaintiff,” he wrote after Judicial Watch discovered at least one document that should have been in possession of the District Attorney’s Office and responsive to their request. He concluded that Judicial Watch successfully proved both a violation of the ORA and an absence of “substantial justification” for such violations.

BREAKING: A judge in Georgia just ordered Fani Willis to pay over $21,000 to Judicial Watch to cover their legal fees in the lawsuit they brought against her to expose her collusion with the Biden DOJ to "get Trump."

The walls have fully closed in on Fani, and I bet she fully… pic.twitter.com/s1XeNjhSGw

— Johnny Midnight ⚡️ (@its_The_Dr) January 8, 2025

McBurney emphasized that non-compliance with ORA has consequences: “One of them can be liability for the requesting party’s attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.” To recover these fees under ORA, plaintiffs must show both a violation occurred and lacked substantial justification.

As a result, Willis has been ordered to pay $19,360 in attorney’s fees plus $2,218 in related litigation expenses within two weeks. The court also underscored troubling admissions from the DA’s Records Custodian who admitted under oath no search for records was conducted when Judicial Watch first submitted its request; instead responding with denials later proven false.

Oh snap! Republican Senator Deb Fisher’s husband became an internet sensation overnight after he appears to refuse to shake Vice President Kamala Harris’ hand. In fact, many people started calling him their “spirit animal” and praising him for not wanting anything to do with Kamala.

Honestly, I can relate!

Trending Politics reports:

U.S. senators in the 119th Congress were sworn into office by Harris, who by constitutional law presides over the upper chamber and may cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie. Fischer, 73, has served in office since 2013 and has met Harris countless times over the past four years, especially given that the Democratic vice president now holds the record for casting more tie-breaking votes than any of her predecessors. However, the normally friendly affair turned icy after her husband Bruce Fischer glared at Harris over the Bible and turned down her outstretched hand, giving her a curt nod instead. Harris dropped her hand back down to their side as the trio posed for a photograph together. Bruce Fischer did not smile.

WATCH:

lol I could watch this over and over! The best

— PatriotRose17 (@PatriotRose17) January 6, 2025

Honestly, Harris was a last ditch effort by Democrats and not a very good one at that. I think deep down they knew she didn’t stand a chance. Would you expect anything else after she polled as the most unpopular vice president in American history?? Her favorability did climb some, but clearly not enough.

In a move that reflects Silicon Valley’s eagerness to mend ties with President-elect Donald Trump, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on Tuesday that Facebook will be shutting down its “fact-checking” department later this month. This decision marks the end of a practice that has been controversial, especially among conservatives who felt silenced during the pandemic. Zuckerberg, 40, shared this news in a company-released video, while Joel Kaplan, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, appeared on “Fox & Friends” to provide further insights. In the video obtained by Fox News, Zuckerberg stated, “We’re going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms.” He added that fact-checkers will be replaced with Community Notes similar to X’s system in the U.S.

Kaplan emphasized on “Fox & Friends” that this change is aimed at bringing Facebook back to its core mission of promoting free speech. He echoed Zuckerberg’s sentiment by saying it’s an opportunity for them to reset the balance in favor of free expression. The inception of Facebook’s fact-checking program was largely due to concerns over Russian interference in the 2016 election. An FBI investigation revealed Russian actors used fake accounts or “bots” on Facebook to spread disinformation and incite discord before Election Day. Following these revelations, Zuckerberg had apologized before Congress for inadequate control over disinformation and data breaches like Cambridge Analytica’s incident.

This one sentence from Mark Zuckerberg proves he's serious about ending the censorship on his platforms.

"We're going to move our trust and safety and content moderation teams out of California. And our US-based content review is going to be based in Texas."

This means Silicon… pic.twitter.com/xXsej9E8qD

— George (@BehizyTweets) January 7, 2025

Back then, Facebook faced significant political pressure to overhaul its oversight processes. As Kaplan explained on Fox News, they turned to independent third-party fact-checkers but soon realized there was too much political bias in their choices of what content to fact-check. Consequently, they are ending this process entirely and introducing a community-driven notes section similar to X’s approach.

Instead of relying on so-called experts who may have their own biases, the new system will depend on platform users providing commentary on content they’ve read. If a note garners broad user support, it can be attached for others to see. Kaplan believes this method is superior as it moves away from expert reliance towards community involvement.

Content moderation policies will also undergo changes since current practices are deemed “too restrictive,” limiting discussions around sensitive topics like immigration and gender issues. Kaplan told Fox News Digital that they aim for discourse without fear of censorship and are revising rules not just in theory but also in enforcement methods.

Automated systems previously used by Facebook often made errors by removing content that didn’t violate standards; however, certain topics such as terrorism or illegal activities will still be moderated carefully.

I wonder if this means all my so called violations will be taken off too….