Morning Wire - Trump Georgia Charges & Illegal Immigrant Benefits | 3.14.24

Episode Date: March 14, 2024

A Georgia judge drops several charges against former President Trump, the UK bans the use of puberty blockers for children, and two California bills grant benefits to illegal immigrants. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. ZBiotics: "The drink before drinking with ZBiotics. Get 15% off your order with promo code WIRE at http://www.ZBiotics.com/Wire" Netsuite: Take advantage of no payments and no interest for six months at Http://www.NetSuite.com/MORNINGWIRE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A Fulton County judge drops several charges against former President Trump in his Georgia election interference case. These, I think, are among the most offensive counts in the indictment in terms of constitutional law. Why did the judge throw out the counts and what does it mean for the case? I'm Georgia Howe and John's on vacation this week. It's Thursday, March 14th, and this is Morning Wire. The UK bans the use of puberty blockers for children. What led to the reversal and will U.S. medical bodies follow suit? And two California bills would grant more benefits to illegal immigrants.

What's been the response from lawmakers in the Golden State? It's unconscionable and I think they're confused about who they represent. They represent the citizens of the state of California. They don't represent the citizens of other countries. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. Hey, guys. Producer Brandon here, Zbiotics pre-outher. Alcohol probiotic is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.

When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. Zbiotics produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. It's designed to work like your liver, but in your gut, where you need it the most. I drink Zbiotics before my first drink on Friday night and woke up feeling great on Saturday. Go to Zbiotics.com slash wire to get 15% off your first order with code wire at checkout. That's Zbiotics.com slash wire today. A judge in Georgia has dropped six charges in a sweeping election interference case against former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants.

Here to discuss, this Daily Wire reporter, Amanda Presta Giacomo. So Amanda, a surprise development in this case that was brought by Fulton County DA Fawnee Willis. First off, what charges did the judge dismiss? So Judge Scott McAfee has dismissed a total of six charges, three of which are against Trump. All of the dismissed charges concern allegations that Trump and his sentence. allies asked Georgia officials to break their oaths of office. One of the charges affecting Trump is connected to a phone call he made to the Georgia Secretary of State about needing around 11,000 votes to flip the sea in 2020. In that call, Trump contended that he had fairly won

the state and urged the secretary to identify the corrupt ballots. Now, Trump co-defendants also saw charges dropped, including three of the 13 against Rudy Giuliani and one of the two counts against former Trump Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. Trump is still facing 10 other counts. Now, why were the charges dropped? Basically, Fannie Willis's office lacked specificity in these charges. The judge found that the facts were missing. And if those are missing, it's nearly impossible for the defendants to try to offer a defense.

Here's a quote from McAfee. They do not give the defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the defendants could have violated the Constitution's and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds of distinct ways. So what does this mean for Trump? Well, notably, McAfee left intact the highly controversial RICO Act charge. So that will stand on its own. However, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy told Morning Wire that he's always found that

count particularly weak. My position from the beginning has been that this is not a RICO. I mean, basically, this is a very confused case that the district attorney has brought. And her big problem is that there's no overarching conspiracy offense. Trying to overturn an election is not a crime. In fact, every state in the United States has a legal process by which you can challenge election results. So you can't have a conspiracy to do something that's legal. Now, Willis's team in an effort to try and reinstate those dropped charges, she could try for a superseding indictment. That's when prosecutors go back.

to the grand jury and change the original indictment. That would further delay the trial, and Democrats really don't want further delays in any of these cases against Trump. They want convictions before the 2024 election. Now, same case, but a totally separate issue. Judge McAfee is expected to make a ruling this week about the potential disqualification of Willis and her office over Willis's alleged misconduct. What's the expected outcome there? You know, it remains unclear. This will likely. come down to McAfee using the standard of an appearance of a conflict versus an actual conflict

with Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom she had an affair. The latter of those two would be a higher bar to clear. McCarthy told us, in his opinion, Willis and Wade should clearly be disqualified. I personally believe that they should be disqualified, both on conflict of interest grounds and because I think they've engaged in what looks to me like false information being provided to the court. Certainly, if the standard is, is there an appearance of impropriety in connection with their continued participation in the case?

I think that's been satisfied. Now, switching gears to another criminal case against Trump, the former president is expected at a hearing in Florida later today over alleged mishandling of classified documents. What's the status there? Right. So Trump is at the very least trying to have that case delayed, if not outright dismissed.

There's been a lot more attention around this case recently, and this comes in light of Robert Hurd testifying before Congress on Tuesday about his findings into President Biden's apparent mishandling of classified documents. Her decline to seek charges against Biden while Trump is facing this case from Jack Smith and Biden's DOJ. We asked McCarthy about that contrast, and here's what he told us. If his analysis is that it's appropriate to prosecute Trump but not prosecute Biden because Trump obstructed the investigation and Biden didn't. That would be an argument for charging Trump

with obstruction and not charging Biden. But as far as the classified information counts are concerned, those offenses, they should be treated the same way across the board. And if Biden's not going to be prosecuted, then Trump shouldn't be prosecuted on them. Well, that perceived double standard has kind of become Trump's calling card in his reelection campaign. Amanda, thanks for reporting. You're welcome. If you're looking around at your business, business and seeing inefficiency, you should know these numbers. 37,000. The number of businesses that have upgraded to the number one cloud financial system,

NetSuite by Oracle. 25. NetSuite just turned 25. That's 25 years of helping businesses streamline their finances and reduce costs. One, because your unique business deserves a custom solution, and that's NetSuite. Learn more when you download NetSuite's popular KPI checklist absolutely free at netsuite.com slash morningwire. That's netsuite.

dot com slash morning wire. The UK's National Health Service has announced that gender clinics will no longer be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to children. Daily Wire Culture reporter Megan Basham is here now with more. So Megan, it seems like Europe is trending away from medical transition for minors. What led to the decision to end them all together

in the UK? So in 2020, England's largest gender care clinic, Tavistock, came under fire after former staff said it was pushing blockers and cross-sex hormones onto gender dysphoric kids too quickly. Some former patients who had been given these treatments sued. Then, after that, inspectors gave the clinic an inadequate rating. And then, well-known British pediatrician Dr. Hillary Cass reviewed the clinic's care and returned a really damning report.

She said Tavistock needed to offer a fundamentally different model of care. So at that point, the clinic was then closed, and that prompted an independent NHS review of blockers and hormones for anyone under 18. This decision is a result of that review. So in a statement released Tuesday, the NHS said this. There is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty blockers to make the treatment routinely available at this time. So NHS doctors will now only be able to give blockers to minors for research purposes,

meaning if a child is enrolled in a clinical study, they may be given them, but that will be the only allowance. So the British government said it welcomes this landmark decision, because they believe this move insurer's treatment is grounded in evidence and is in the, quote, best interests of the child. Now, people here in the U.S. are pretty passionate about these treatments. What's the response been in Europe to the ban? You know, as you might expect, LGBT activists are expressing a lot of unhappiness about it.

To give you just one example, the UK-based trans advocacy organization, Mermaids said that trans youth need access to these kind of treatments in order to, quote, live happy and healthy lives. And they said that they're going to continue to fight for kids who they say need them to have access to blockers. Now, what about the AMA or the American Academy of Pediatrics? Where do they stand on this? So far, both groups have resolutely opposed any legislation to limit blockers, hormones, and even surgeries for children, both at the national and state level. and they have routinely cited the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or W-Path, as it's known, as a medical authority informing their positions.

But that panel has become increasingly controversial. Just last week, independent journalist Michael Schellenberger obtained over 240 pages of internal W-Path files, as well as a number of videos from internal Zoom meetings. Well, those meetings show that W-Path medical professionals who provide this treatment to minors know that they're not getting informed consent from their patients. In some of these videos and emails, the doctors state that children and their parents aren't being warned about potential long-term harm,

like loss of bone density or normal sexual function, before they make their decisions. In one video in particular, an endocrinologist expresses doubt that some of his patients understand their decisions because he says, quoting, they haven't even had biology in high school yet. And then another email chain discussing, continuing to give cross-ex hormones to a patient, the doctor suspects might be schizophrenic.

In some emails, W-Path members acknowledge cross-ex hormones cause liver tumors and cancer, and they acknowledge that genital surgeries are being done on minors. So this was Schellenberger telling News Nation about what he found. I think what's so significant here is that we have W-Path members, practitioners, and leaders acknowledging that they're not getting informed consent from the children's, adolescents and vulnerable adults for whom these procedures are on whom they're being performed. That's extremely significant. That's a breach of basic medical ethics. It's right up there with do no harm is that the people that are getting these treatments must understand what's happening

to them. And the files show very clearly that that's not what's happening. Schellenberger went on to say that these documents show that W. Path is not using evidence-based standards. So his reporting will likely continue to bolster efforts to end this kind of practice in GOP-led states, but it does remain to be seen if it's going to have any impact in blue states or at the national level. Well, anytime you make permanent changes, especially to a child's body, you really need complete certainty. Megan, thanks for reporting.

Anytime. A California bill that would provide taxpayer-funded legal aid to illegal immigrants convicted of violent felonies is being pulled from consideration just one day before it was set to be discussed by lawmakers. Here to discuss the bill is Daily Wire senior editor, As Shore. So, Ash, what can you tell us about this bill's specifics? So Bill AB 2031 would allow nonprofits to use taxpayer dollars to provide legal services for illegal immigrants convicted of violent crimes.

Existing California law actually prohibits the use of state grant money to provide legal services to those illegal immigrants who have been convicted of or who are currently appealing a conviction for a violent or serious felony. AB 2031 would remove that prohibition. The bill would also expand the ability to be able to be able to be convicted of. of nonprofits to use taxpayer dollars to defend illegal immigrants from deportation, which would include those violent felons. So why is the bill being pulled?

We don't have an official answer, but California Assemblyman Bill Assailies stated he received a fair amount of backlash from constituents. Here's what he had to say about the bill during an appearance on Stinchfield tonight. They want to pay the legal fees to help them fight deportation after they're convicted of a crime, the illegal immigrants. This is the stuff that's coming out of the state of California. This is going to take tax dollars to defend criminal illegal immigrants in deportation proceedings. So we can have, what, more victims like Kate Stiley, who was killed in San Francisco or the nursing student in Georgia?

Why? Why would we do this? Assaili has also introduced a bill to repeal funding for free health care for illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants in California can currently gain access to different government fund in medical insurance, but Assaili's bill would limit access to U.S. citizens. Now, there's also another bill in California that would expand taxpayer services for illegal immigrants. Tell us about AB 1840. Right. So that bill would allow illegal immigrants to also qualify for the state's first-time home buying loan program. The first-time home buyer program debuted in March of last year and quickly ran out of the $300 million it was granted to provide qualified first-time buyers with down payments.

The program is set to reopen applications this April and Democrat Assemblyman walk. Joaquin Arambula introduced a bill that would clarify that the program is open to illegal immigrants in addition to citizens. It took less than a month for the program to run out of funding when it was limited to U.S. citizens. Expanding the pool of potential applicants would strain those resources even further. Here's what a salee said about that bill. What you're doing is by picking an illegal immigrant to have that down payment program, they're taking it away from a California American citizen to have that opportunity. We can't have that.

Well, speaking from experience, it is very hard to stay afloat as a middle-class person in California. So I understand some of this backlash. Ash, thanks for reporting. You're welcome. That was Daily Wire Senior Editor, Ash Short. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.