M.L. Nestel

M.L. Nestel joined Raw Story in 2023. An award-winning writer and editor, his work has been published in New York Magazine, Los Angeles Magazine and The Guardian, among other titles. He also produces and writes for true-crime genre TV shows. Prior to that, he served on the Newsweek masthead as a senior writer, wrote as a correspondent at ABC News and held the titles of West Coast bureau chief and senior writer at The Daily Beast. Priors also include working as senior national correspondent at The Daily Mail and investigative reporter at all three NYC tabloids: The New York Post, The New York Daily News and Newsday. He traveled around the country as a national correspondent at The Daily. M.L. published hundreds of stories about underground music and cinema — most notably as a critic for Box Office Magazine and the New York editor at Soma Magazine. He also headed development at Fountainhead Films. M.L. splits his time between Los Angeles and New York.

Stormy Daniels tells Rachel Maddow she's faced 'graphic' and 'brazen' death threats

Stormy Daniels is ducking nonstop death threats and facing financial ruin ever since she testified in Donald Trump's hush money case.

Daniels spoke with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in an interview that aired Tuesday night, detailing harassment and dire financial struggles she faces due to the case. It was her first TV interview since the former president became a convicted felon on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in his historic hush money trial.

"The biggest thing is that they're not hiding like they used to," she said, referring to those wishing to harm her and her family. "It used to be bots, you know, now they're using their real stuff."

"There's, you know, Facebook threads from people in my own community [who say] they plan to do things to my house and my family."

For six years, Daniels said she has tried to keep her wits while regularly fielding graphic missives saying things like, "they are going to rape everybody in my family including my young daughter before they kill them."

Daniels was brought to Lower Manhattan criminal court where she recounted under oath a tryst with Trump in 2006 at a Lake Tahoe hotel during a golf tournament. The former president stood accused of fudging a six-figure sum to Daniels to buy her silence weeks before the 2016 election.

While he chose not to testify at his trial, Trump denied he had sexual relations with Daniels.

Even during last week's debate, the presumptive Republican nominee told 50 million people: "I didn't have sex with a porn star."

Trump has vowed to appeal the verdict.

"Trump is trying to make, I believe, trying to make an example out of me," she told Maddow, adding that it's an example "of anybody who dares stand up to him."

She claims she's had to pick pellets out of her horse and pick up seemingly never-ending legal documents.

"I was served again... the day before yesterday," she said.

Daniels believes her partner's home is under threat because of her tenancy.

"They are trying to take my partner's house," she said, noting that she pays rent monthly to help with his mortgage, adding, "they're demanding personal information about my 13-year-old daughter."

Daniels said after she was doxxed and her address leaked, "I can’t go anywhere."

"It's kind of common knowledge now that I -- a lot of people were doxxed," she said. "I know that Cohen was doxxed. They're trying to dox jurors. The judges were doxed. I was doxxed. And I know that it's directly related because it happened while I was literally still on the stand."

She also detailed the repercussions of having her address in public.

“My mailbox is destroyed. My animals have been injured. My daughter can't go outside. There's press and lookie-loos out there. I'm afraid to go outside. I'm afraid to go out and mow the lawn. I can't go anywhere. I'm afraid of being followed. The death threats are so much more graphic and detailed and brazen," she said.

When Daniels refused to complete a document requesting details about her daughter, she claimed: "I could be held in contempt with sanctions and that I have to pay this money."

That would be on top of the estimated $600,000 she owes to Trump for a defamation case she brought that was tossed.

She complimented columnist E. Jean Carroll who successfully beat Trump twice in court for defamation, but wonders how she managed to win and be "given millions" while her attorney fees "racked up to over half a million."

When Maddow asked if she had the means to pay the substantial monies — Daniels admitted she couldn't.

"No, and nor do I think I should," she said. "It's not fair."

Watch the clip below or at this link.

Expert calls Supreme Court's immunity ruling a 'godsend from heaven for Donald Trump'

The ink barely dried on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling before Donald Trump's lawyers filed papers to compel New York Judge Juan Merchan to sideline his hush money trial guilty verdict and push back his sentencing.

And he did.

Merchan scratched the July 11 date in favor of a new date, Sept. 18, “if such is still necessary.”

Trump’s attorneys convinced Merchan to consider that Manhattan prosecutors had placed “highly prejudicial emphasis on official-acts evidence,” that leaned on Trump’s tweets and witness testimony about Oval Office meetings (likely speaking to his senior aide Hope Hicks' tearful testimony).

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig found the seminal 6-3 decision by the high court to be manna for the MAGA leader's legal plight.

"This thing is a disaster for prosecutors," he said on CNN's "The Source."

He didn't have to name the players prosecuting Trump and others being tested after the ruling, including special prosecutor Jack Smith, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and Fulton County DA Fani Willis; not to mention state judges like Merchan and Fulton County Superior Court Scott McAfee overseeing the Georgia RICO election interference case.

It also includes federal judges such as U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon overseeing the confidential documents case in Florida, and Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal election subversion case in Washington D.C.

The decision grants presidents astonishing powers without legal reprisal if they are considered core official acts. Private acts are fair game.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor blamed the court for playing kingmaker.

"The president is now a king above the law," reads her dissent.

Honig marveled: "This opinion is a godsend from heaven for Donald Trump."

It's especially favorable because of the lack of specifics that define what exactly defines an "official act."

"The way that the Supreme Court defines 'official act' is astonishingly broad," said Honig. "...It's also so vague that it's going to be almost impossible for Judge Merchan for Judge Chutkan to apply it."

Watch the clip below or at this link.

'Why are you yelling at me?': CNN guests get heated over 'felon' in White House

Decorum remained on the sidelines for a few seconds on CNN when a Republican operative tangoed with a Democratic strategist over whether he approved of a "felon and a crack addict" sitting in on White House senior staff meetings.

"Are you comfortable, Jamal, are you comfortable with Hunter Biden running White House senior staff meetings," Republican Scott Jennings said, goading Democrat Jamal Simmons. "Do you think this is good? Do you think this is good?"

Simmons, who served as communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris, smiled as he replied: "Why are you yelling at me?"

What appeared to set off Jennings were revelations of Biden's questionable physical and mental health following last week's abysmal debate performance.

It was reported that after claiming a cold was to blame for his unsatisfactory debate effort — where he was lost in sentences and raspy in tone — instead, he faulted travel fatigue.

The New York Times confirmed that the mental lapses on display before 50 million people in the debate were not an anomaly and had become far more frequent.

Also, Hunter Biden, who was convicted last month of lying about his crack addiction when he secured a gun permit — was reportedly taking a more active role in his dad's administration day-to-day.

"This is what you call a high-speed come apart," Jennings said. "The White House is off the rails. The president has effectively admitted tonight that he is not up to both campaigning for president and being president."

"I don't know where we're going from here but this has been a momentous day and I'll be shocked if there aren't more Democrats who come out and say what are we doing, we are walking into disaster if we stick with this."

Simmons gently reminded Jennings that Trump comes with conviction baggage of his own as he pursues his White House run.

"Are we sure, Scott, that you weren't talking about the criminal felon that had the secret documents that he was holding in his bathroom in Mar-a-Lago?"

Jennings snapped, raising his voice and pointing at the camera.

"Listen... I'm asking," he said trying to calm himself. "We're talking about Joe Biden — we're talking about Joe Biden tonight who is admitting to his own donors, people in your party that he can't both perform and campaign and you want to talk about the Mar-a-Lago documents case which is not going to come to trial before November."

"This is the sitting president you worked for him. I want to know if you were in a senior staff meeting would you want Hunter Biden looking over your shoulder that's my question?"

Watch the clip below or at this link.

Dems disparage Biden as 'donkey in the room' during messaging meeting: report

A meeting to get House Democrats on the same page to mobilize political messaging spun into a post-debate pity party with many slamming President Joe Biden as a "donkey."

Axios reported that the temperature grew hot amongst lawmakers participating in the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee meeting.

Those in attendance during the virtual meeting Tuesday afternoon became frustrated that the president's performance and cognitive state were on full display in front of 50 million TV screens last week when the incumbent competed to win over voters ahead of the Nov. 5 election, according to the outlet.

The agenda was swept up by widespread misgivings toward Biden, a member of the meeting and another source confirmed to the outlet.

Throughout the gathering, Biden was repeatedly disparaged as the "donkey in the room," they said.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who became the first sitting member of Congress to call for Biden to throw in the towel and let someone else run in his stead, confirmed that there "were a lot of people not very happy."

While Doggett was first, he isn't expected to be the lone voice pleading for a change of the ticket, especially if the campaign and the White House can't "start to show that they get it."

Already, Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) published an editorial accepting that "Donald Trump is going to win. And I’m OK with that."

The outlet has learned that one Democratic lawmaker suggested Biden "step aside outright" and that while there is still support for Biden, there needs to be "at a minimum" a "decisive change in course by replacing his top campaign advisers."

Meanwhile, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) pledged his support for Biden and confirmed that the party wouldn't be "holding people back" from expressing their public views — even if they are unflattering to Biden in public.

DOJ plans to prosecute Trump even after he possibly wins presidency: report

In the event that Donald Trump wins the election and becomes the president — his Justice Department won't slam the prosecuting brakes.

The Washington Post reported that officials have confirmed anonymously that the criminal cases against Trump will move forward at least until Inauguration Day in January 2025.

The outlet spoke with senior law enforcement officials about their game plan: they have long prepared for the two federal indictments against the presumptive Republican nominee as being constrained by deadlines.

The primary reason for this is an institutional tenet of the Justice Department policy to restrain from criminally charging a sitting president.

That policy holds for presidents, but sources and lawyers at the department told The Post they don't think it applies to pursuing matters against a president-elect.

That means motions will continue to be filed, court hearings scheduled, and a trial could plausibly still take place up until Trump's hand rests on the Bible to be sworn in.

That means up until Inauguration Day — the sources predict it will be as close to business as usual at the Justice Department.

When reached by The Post, a spokesman for special counsel Jack Smith wouldn't comment.

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung stayed true to the Trump talking points, calling the cases “hoaxes” and noted that they “are imploding as their collective efforts to interfere in the election have massively backfired.”

Notably, however, that plan may still come into legal headwinds after Monday's historic Supreme Court ruling that immunized the president's official acts from criminal culpability.

Already, the ruling inspired New York's state court to push back a sentencing of the former president's conviction of 34 counts of falsifying business records in his seven-week hush money trial from July 11 to Sept. 18.

"The July 11, 2024, sentencing date is therefore vacated," Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan wrote.

What's more, Trump could also install an attorney general who might move to swiftly remove his cases from their respective dockets by dropping the charges.

Trump faces federal indictments for his election subversion trial in Washington, D.C. and his classified documents obstruction case in Fort Pierce, Florida.

“The Justice Department isn’t governed by the election calendar," former Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley, said. "Its prosecution of Trump is based on the law, the facts, and the Justice Manual — the department’s bible that lays out the post-Watergate norms that have prevented it from being weaponized.

“Until those norms change, or they’re ordered otherwise, I’d expect this Justice Department to be full speed ahead. And they should be.”

Dem calls on 'pearl-clutching' colleagues to calm down when — not if — Trump wins

A second Democrat in office has come out calling for President Joe Biden to call it and sit out Nov. 5.

Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) published a Bangor Daily News editorial about how he's not surprised or fazed by the 81-year-old incumbent's freefall from his poor showing at last week's debate — but that the outcome of this election has been clear to him for months: "While I don’t plan to vote for him, Donald Trump is going to win. And I’m OK with that."

He joins Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas — who also went public by name to express his conviction that Biden can't win the contest against former President Donald Trump.

Rather than wallow in a second Trump term and become unhinged about his dictator for a day promise — Golden is more focused on how to disavow the scare tactics.

"...I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system," he writes.

As the country turns 248, Golden thinks there is confidence to believe that American democracy — which has "withstood civil war, world wars, acts of terrorism and technological and societal changes" — will weather MAGA 2.0.

"Pearl-clutching about a Trump victory ignores the strength of our democracy," he writes. "Jan. 6, 2021, was a dark day. But Americans stood strong. Hundreds of police officers protected the democratic process against thousands who tried to use violence to upend it."

Judges and election officials did their jobs, as did fellow members of congress on that deadly day when a mob stormed the Capitol. The election results were certified.

At stake, as Golden sees it, isn't the threat to democracy, but the pinch on peoples' pocketbooks.

"This election is about the economy, not democracy," he writes. "And when it comes to our economy, our Congress matters far more than who occupies the White House."

After the election, it will be on Congress to work with him and not against him.

"In 2025, I believe Trump is going to be in the White House," writes Golden. "Maine’s representatives will need to work with him when it benefits Mainers, hold him accountable when it does not and work independently across the aisle no matter what."

'Beat Donald Trump like a drum': Columnist makes bold case for Biden 'love' campaign

President Joe Biden should "beat Donald Trump like a drum" but in a loving way, a new Salon opinion piece contends.

In "This is how Joe Biden can beat Donald Trump like a drum," Lucian K Truscott IV contrasts the wide divide between Biden and the presumptive Republican nominee, former president and convicted felon.

"Americans love this country," Truscott writes. "Joe Biden loves this country. Compare and contrast that to Donald Trump and the Republican Party he has remade in his own image."

"He hates America. He has convinced his MAGA followers to hate this country as much as he does."

Biden needs to double down on his messaging and know who he is really running against, Truscott argues, adding this contest isn't a repeat of the last election.

ALSO READ: ‘Harm Democrats’: Republican lawmakers practically giddy about Trump prison silver lining

"Accusing Trump of lying every time he opens his mouth is stating the obvious, as is accusing him of extremism and racism and all the other terrible isms, including the modern-day fascism of MAGA Republicans," he writes.

The piece also explores the obvious reasons that make Biden a stronger candidate aren't the meek delivery and chalky style points that Biden earned in last week's debate, but the content of his character.

"This election is between those who love America and those who are being told every day how and why to hate their own country," he writes. "People are proud of their hometowns, proud of their families, proud of their schools, proud of their heritage, proud of our history. Pride feels good. Shame doesn’t. Love feels good. Hate doesn’t."

And for this, Biden must draw a more distinct contrast to attract those to love's path, the opinion writer concludes.

He adds: "Joe Biden can take this stark contrast between light and dark, between himself and Donald Trump, and he will win the election."

Biden camp soothes donors by claiming he's 'probably in better health than most of us'

If you believe President Joe Biden's campaign chair, the Democratic candidate going for a second term is in such tip-top health that he would put many to shame.

“He’s probably in better health than most of us,” Jen O’Malley Dillon told key donors Monday, CNN reports.

Dillon made the sunny statement during a Zoom huddle with 500 donors in hopes of quashing widespread concerns that the 81-year-old incumbent may not be up to lead the free world for another four years.

The nothing-to-see-here mentality — as the commander-in-chief is seemingly disinterested in answering reporters' questions or talking off a teleprompter — didn't harden the resolve for some on the call.

The outlet pointed to a National Finance Committee member who left the call dismayed that the top Biden shot-caller would gloss over the situation rather than come forward with some hard truths.

ALSO READ: Why I'm sticking with Joe Biden

There was a question-and-answer portion to the call, according to a donor, and it had staffers reading them off so O’Malley Dillon could answer them.

One reportedly asked how Biden might fare in another debate.

O'Malley Dillon apparently took ownership of the poor debate showing and that Biden would take it to Trump should they meet again.

Another question asked about Biden's strategy should his polling numbers start to tumble.

O'Malley Dillon and other campaign officials said they weren't fretting about a dip, and claimed Biden has held his own at the polls and the debate didn't do any serious damage.

There have been rumblings for Biden to bow out of the race fearing his campaign could crash and burn — and may not be fixable to win over enough undecideds come November 5.

Notably, Biden's deputy campaign manager Rob Flaherty sent a memo over the weekend demanding Democrats back Biden at all costs.

“The bedwetting brigade is calling for Joe Biden to ‘drop out,’” he wrote. “That is the best possible way for Donald Trump to win and us to lose."

"First of all: Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee, period. End of story. Voters voted.”

'I'm in Pampers': Van Jones unashamed of being part of Biden 'bedwetting brigade'

There is rabid concern over whether to toss in the second-term towel on President Joe Biden after his poor performance opposite former President Donald Trump in last week's debate before 50 million viewers.

And it's spawned pushback by dogged Democrats — with one Biden campaign brass denouncing the so-called "bedwetting brigade" seeking to muscle the 46th president out of office for a younger replacement.

And CNN's Van Jones openly embraced the deleterious labeling.

"I'll tell you this: people are talking about bedwetters," he said. "I'm sitting here where I'm in Pampers, Huggies, and Depends, okay," he mused. "Call me a bedwetter."

Over the weekend, Biden's campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon sent a memo suggesting that the 90-minute dud that Biden earned for failing to clearly explain his policies and avoid wandering into aimless tangents wouldn't dictate the race results.

She called the response "overblown media narratives,” according to The Washington Post.

And hours later, deputy campaign manager Rob Flaherty launched his own memo that sought to back Biden at all costs.

“The bedwetting brigade is calling for Joe Biden to ‘drop out,’” he wrote. “That is the best possible way for Donald Trump to win and us to lose."

"First of all: Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee, period. End of story. Voters voted.”

ALSO READ: NRA no longer 'human rights group' on Google

A scenario where the party goes nuclear and switches donkeys with less than four months until Election Day — would lead to outright chaos and squabbles among the party that would play into Trump's hands, The Post reports.

That didn't seem to bother Jones.

"I''m scared, he said. "I'm worried. I'm nervous. And a lot of people are and you get people who come, who come out and they, everybody has the party line – but behind closed doors, what people are worrying about is what are the polls going to show in the battleground states a week from now."

Jones suggests those polls and the confidence of donors' pocketbooks will dictate what happens with Biden's future.

"...We don't know what, what that's gonna look like," he said about the polls and donor data. "Number one: What the polls are going to show in a week? Number two, are they going to be ... can Joe Biden survive in an unscripted scenario?

Can you sit down for an interview? Can you do one? Can you do two or three? If so, then they're right? It was a bad day. But if you can't, it's not a bad day — he's in a bad way. If you're in a bad way, that's different."

Watch the clip below or at this link.

'Skeptical': CNN's Kaitlan Collins presses Trump attorney on tossing hush money case

Donald Trump's defense is going on offense to zap his legal troubles now that the Supreme Court ruled the president possesses absolute immunity for core constitutional powers.

The first case in Trump's sights is his 34-count felony conviction for falsifying business records last month in his New York City hush money trial.

"I think it just adds to the vast number of irregularities and unconstitutional aspects of that trial that took place in New York," said Will Scharf, one of the former president's defense attorneys, appearing on CNN's "The Source" with Kaitlin Collins. "We're obviously looking forward to vigorously challenging that trial verdict on numerous grounds.

"This is just another ground that I think adds to the clamor in terms of overturning that verdict."

Collins wasn't convinced.

"I'm a little skeptical," she said. "But we'll see what the judge decides here."

The court ruled 6-3, putting to rest Trump's absolute immunity claim from all prosecution when it comes to core constitutional powers, but left open vulnerability when it comes to unofficial acts.

ALSO READ: How to survive Supreme Court stupidity without losing your mind

Scharf, a Republican candidate for Missouri attorney general, laid out some of the basis for not only getting the verdict appealed, but believes the high court's decision could help the 45th president secure a new trial.

He pointed to Trump's Twitter (now X) account and how previous tweets were raised as evidence thanks to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution team during the seven-week trial in Lower Manhattan's criminal court.

"President Trump's Twitter account has been held by numerous courts to be during his time as presidency, to be an official communications instrumentality of the White House — so those sorts of things would be official acts under the Supreme Court's ruling today. And therefore, they were not admissible as evidenced in that New York trial."

He also pointed to various responses and comments that were made or delivered out of the front door of the White House Communications "channels."

"Those would be things that we believe based on the Supreme Court's opinion today fall neatly within the outer perimeter of a president's official responsibilities and duties," he said.

Asked by Collins if the tweets and communications warrant a "new trial" in New York — Scharf told her, "it certainly should."

And as for the former president's federal election subversion case where he is charged along with others of scheming to overturn the 2020 election to clench onto the levers of presidential power Scharf hoped the ruling would also kick in.

"This case is going to be removed, handed back to the district court," he said. "The district court is going to have to determine which of the acts underlying the indictment are immune and which are not immune. And then we'll proceed from there."

Watch the clip below or at this link.

Legal wonks clash over 'hysterical' Sotomayor dissent: 'That sounds pretty sexist to me'

Two titans of the American legal system had very different takeaways after Monday's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.

Former Trump White House counsel Ty Cobb appeared on CNN to undermine Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent for being big on "hysterical... screaming" — but dry on substance.

The court’s conservative majority ruled 6-3 — three justices were Trump-appointed — to allow for official acts to remain immune from prosecution. They left open the possibility that private acts could be prosecutable.

The decision called into question which acts are deemed official, as the 45th president has claimed in his defense of some of his criminal allegations; specifically the attempt to subvert the 2020 election.

Sotomayor's dissent wrote that the decision by the high court armed the president with monarchy powers to order the elimination of a political rival, a military coup or sell bribes to bidders: "Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

ALSO READ: Why I'm sticking with Joe Biden

"Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done," she wrote. "The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Cobb forcefully disagreed.

"Her dissent was a little hysterical and it really offered no analysis," he said. "A lot of a lot of screaming, no analysis. And I think that was unfortunate."

Instead, he openly wished Justice Elena Kagan would have taken on pen duties and written the document.

Harvard University constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe came down like a stack of legal tomes on Cobb for the Sotomayor slight.

"I'm afraid much as I respect Ty Cobb — I couldn't disagree more with his characterization of the dissents as 'hysterical,'" he said in a separate setting outside of the company of Cobb. "That sounds pretty sexist to me. There was plenty of analysis, much more analysis."

Tribe proceeded to grade the dissenting opinions with Sotomayor and fellow liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson an A+ and A, though he didn't say who earned which grade.

In a separate dissent, Jackson wrote that she wanted to lay out the “theoretical nuts and bolts of what, exactly, the majority has done today to alter the paradigm of accountability for Presidents of the United States.”

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Tribe's former student, opposed the dissents and went as far as to accuse the three liberal justices of having misinterpreted the majority's opinion and engaging in "fear mongering."

Roberts wrote that they sought to "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."

And he wrote that "like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity."

Watch the clip below or at this link.

'Not honest': CNN host calls out senator for writing off Biden's 'bad night' debate

A tense exchange unfolded Monday on CNN when a Democratic senator tried to dance around President Joe Biden's debate performance against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

CNN host Jake Tapper showcased Biden's lowlights and grilled Delaware Sen. Chris Coons in response to two questionable moments when he squared off against the 45th president.

One showed Biden, 81, with a vacant stare, twisting Medicare with a COVID question. Another had him explain his path to a stronger border with a petering ending of "more border patrol" and "more asylum officers."

The latter was met by the swaggering 78-year-old MAGA leader who scored style points when he shot back: "I really don't think he said at the end of that sentence, and I don't think he knows what he said either."

"How do you explain the performance at the debate and moments like that," asked Tapper.

Coons, who serves as Biden's co-campaign chair responded in the defensive.

ALSO READ: Why I'm sticking with Joe Biden

"Well, Jake, you just took what was probably the most difficult moment to watch in the entire 90-minute debate," he said. "But you didn't share what I found the hardest moments to watch, which was when Donald Trump was unleashing a torrent of lies of invective of vengeance... Donald Trump gave no reasons for folks to vote for him and a lot of reasons for folks to vote against him."

Coons contended that Biden's showing was a blip in his sterling reputation as an everyman from Scranton, Pennsylvania.

"The next day, Joe Biden, our president, gave a forceful and clear and engaging speech on a campaign stage at a rally in North Carolina and he's had strong days ever since," he said. "Everybody has a bad night and I think that was a weak debate performance."

Coons then promised more proof of Biden would show in other "unscripted" engagements with voters and the press.

But Tapper forcefully hit back.

"So with all due respect it is not, it is not honest to say that this is just one night," he scolded Coons. "There have been moments like this that people have seen in front of the cameras – and other moments, with cameras not there."

Tapper brought up another Biden trip-up in an event two weeks ago about immigration, with video queued up for Coons that showed Biden experiencing "some sort of glitch" while attempting to introduce DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Biden also got into some puzzling gibberish after saying Mayorkas' name.

"I don't know what that was," Tapper said.

Coons said that Biden freezing mid-sentence "doesn't trouble me at all" and suggested the media focus on "more alarming" clips of Trump.

Watch the clip below or at this link.

Supreme Court's immunity ruling likely to 'hurt' or 'hamstring' Georgia case: expert

Donald Trump is still staring down the barrel of several criminal federal and state cases despite the Supreme Court ruling that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts, but not private acts.

And yet legal experts say it's going to be tricky for Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to discern which of the remaining counts brought against Trump fall under official and off-the-commander-in-chief's clock.

“I think this does hurt the Georgia case quite a lot,” Atlanta defense attorney Andrew Fleischman told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “There’s not much clear guidance at all. I think Georgia courts will likely also have to apply this novel analysis, and that creates a lot of opportunity for delay.”

He continued: "You’ve got the potential to really hamstring this case."

ALSO READ: NRA no longer 'human rights group' on Google

The historic 6-3 ruling was dominated by the conservative majority of justices — three of whom were appointed by Trump.

It ruled that Trump couldn't be “prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority” and that includes interacting with members of his executive branch and the Justice Department.

Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

The decision also comes after the court last week determined that federal authorities overstepped by tacking on an obstruction charge to several hundred MAGA supporters who laid siege on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Former federal prosecutor John Malcolm, who also serves as vice president of the Heritage Foundation’s Institute for Constitutional Government, told the Journal-Constitution that Monday's decision by the high court will make the Georgia state case and the federal election subversion cases “much, much, much more complicated.”

“The court also made it very clear that the thumb is on the scale in terms of concluding that these are official acts, that it’s the prosecution that bears the burden of demonstrating that these are not official acts,” said Malcolm.

Questions remain as to whether the judge will figure out which charges fall under the president's official duties.

Moreover, McAfee must sort out whether Trump’s attempts to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to stymie the counting of the election results in Congress was a presidential action or a private design.

The Georgia subversion case remains at a stand-still while the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a stay as its judges determine whether Willis should be ousted from prosecuting the case due to allegations she carried on an affair with her consultant Nathan Wade and had to defend against accusations that they dipped into his six-figure taxpayer salary to take lavish trips to California's wine country to the Caribbean.

When reached by the outlet, the Fulton DA’s office declined to comment.

'A criminal and a traitor': Mary Trump urges voters to see her uncle is 'unhinged'

President Biden may have been fighting a cold during Thursday night's debate, but for Mary Trump — Donald Trump can't undo being tarred as a traitor.

The former president's niece's latest Substack write-up titled: "Why I’m still with President Biden: The other guy is a menace" tries not to get stuck on Biden's poor effort during the consequential rematch on the world's stage before 50 million people — one of them standing eight feet away in his Republican rival former President Donald Trump.

"It would be absurd to pretend that President Joe Biden had a good debate last night," she wrote. "I was there — he did not."

But for all the fallout that has the incumbent's base whispering about replacing Biden after he barely could form sentences and often lost his train of thought, Mary Trump still has faith that her uncle can be beat.

Especially if the voters are reminded of who Trump is.

As she writes: "I’ll take hoarse and halting over hate-filled and unhinged every day of the week."

The ex-president's niece didn't pull punches in regard to the CNN moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, whom she accuses of choosing to "abdicate their journalistic responsibility" by not pressing Trump who she describes as "an enemy of American democracy and a free press."

She also wondered why they steered clear of her uncle's historic guilty verdict for falsifying business records to favor more time on "inflation and immigration."

And for her, Biden scored points.

"I do know that Biden called out my uncle for raping [New York writer] E. Jean Carroll and his tanking of the American economy," she wrote. "I do know that Joe Biden is a good man who knows the difference between allies and enemies, freedom and tyranny, and right and wrong."

After Thursday, Mary sees a binary choice in this presidential election: "President Biden had a cold and stumbled badly. Donald Trump is a traitor. The former should not in any way negate the latter."

'Could end up hurting him': Expert warns Trump's next move puts D.C. trial before election

If Donald Trump attempts to get his election subversion case tossed he could compel Special Counsel Jack Smith to lean out his indictment and bring a trial ahead of the general election.

NYU law professor Ryan Goodman said as much during an appearance on CNN.

He noted that if Trump tries to tap into Friday's Supreme Court decision, where the justices voted in favor of sparing some Jan. 6 defendants of obstruction charges — it could blow up in his face.

ALSO READ: Rep. Byron Donalds, his gigantic Jim Crow myth and a forgotten fact about Black voters

"I think that Donald Trump needs to worry," Goodman said. "If he were to make the argument Jack Smith should drop two charges – it could end up hurting him and backfiring; hurting Donald Trump."

"Because after Monday, when the Supreme Court rules on immunity, big question: can Jack Smith say, okay, I'm going to slim this case down. We're going to curtail charges and now we do have time to proceed to a jury trial before the election?'"

The former president was slapped with two obstruction-related charges as part of a four-count criminal indictment brought by Smith last year.

The justices ruled 6-3 that the 2002 charge of obstructing an official proceeding that had been instituted as a fail-safe to the white collar corruption involving the Enron Corp. must include solid evidence that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents.

The decision will only affect a small swath of people who were charged or even convicted of laying siege to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Congress' effort to foil the certification of votes.

There are an estimated 250 cases currently pending, about 50 convicted on obstruction alone, and 27 currently serving time, according to CNN.

Goodman noted this in a tweet: "A quarter of [Jan. 6 defendants] pleaded guilty but NOT to obstruction. They pleaded to other charges. Those charges and those sentences are utterly unaffected by Supreme Court’s ruling."

It's expected that the decision will be repurposed by Trump's legal team to take aim at the Justice Department allegations of overreaching when it came to bringing cases against the rioting defendants.

Goodman noted that the Supreme Court’s opinion didn't address the fake electors scheme that specifically deals with Trump.

The Supreme Court on Friday limited the power of prosecutors to pursue obstruction charges against those who rioted at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, narrowing a law that could have tacked years onto the sentences of hundreds of defendants.

Goodman noted that Jack Smith has no need to be worried because Trump's other charges related to the fake electors scheme are still viable.

Watch below or click here.