The Bogus Case In New York Against Trump

Alvin Bragg vs Donald Trump.  I'll preface my remarks by saying that it is taking everything in my power to not use the expletives of which people like Bragg are deserving.  He's got a 7 or 8 year old case, where the statute of limitations has run.  So he turned it into a felony by alleging the false business records allegations were done with intent to commit another crime.  What other crime?  Bragg feels no need to disclose that.  And, of course, the case centers around the payments made to Stormy Daniels, allegedly to keep her quiet about a brief fling she had with Trump; the assertion being that Trump paid her to cover up the affair while running for president in 2016.

Who gives a damn that he had an affair?  Other presidents have.  Guess who was fined $375,000 (one of the largest fines ever against a presidential campaign) by the FEC (Federal Election Commission) for campaign reporting violations?  Barack Obama.  Was Obama prosecuted by anyone?  Of course not.  This is a sham trial against Trump.  And the trial judge, one Juan Merchan, refused Trump's motion to delay the trial until after the election.  The allegations against Trump are based on events from 2016 and 2017.  But now - suddenly - there is an urgency to bring this matter to trial?  Bull!

This trial is a clear demonstration of election interference - by the party that repeatedly tells us they are the ones protecting democracy.  Bull!  So, while Trump has been ordered to be in the courtroom every day of the trial, Biden has been out on the campaign trail in the very important swing state of Pennsylvania.  Biden gets to campaign while Trump must deal with a bull! trial.  This doe not sound like the United States of America.  This sounds more like Soviet Russia, or Vladimir Putin's Russia.  Putin runs for office, while the opposition rots in prison, or worse.  

Let's talk some more about Judge Merchan.  I heard he had donated to Biden's 2020 campaign.  So I looked it up.  $15 to the Biden campaign.  $10 to something called the Progressive Turnout Project.  And another $10 to Stop Republicans.  The latter is a group that describes itself as a "grassroots funded effort dedicated to resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump's radical right-wing legacy."  I guess we know where Judge Merchan stands politically.  

Here was one legal analyst:  "While the amounts here are minimal, it's surprising that a sitting judge would make political donations of any size to a partisan candidate or cause."  Fox news?  No, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

Here was a legal ethics professor from NYU (New York University):  "...New York, like most US jurisdictions, has adopted language from the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct (prohibiting judges from) 'soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate.'"  I guess Judge Merchan did not concern himself with that rule.  But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assuming it was an honest mistake, the proper thing would have been to grant Trump's motion and recused himself.  In order to avoid any appearance of impropriety.  But, we know that didn't happen.

While Bragg was busy upgrading Trump's alleged misdemeanor paperwork violations into 34 felonies (what Bull!), he was busy downgrading "60% of felony cases to lesser charges last year - amid fury over criminals being repeatedly released to roam streets of the Big Apple."  (This from Fox, citing the Daily Mail.)

Mr. Bragg's predecessor had an opportunity to bring this case.  He declined.  The Feds had an opportunity to bring this case.  They declined.  But I guess Biden is feeling the heat, given his sinking poll numbers, and multiple attacks from the party's base.  How does it look with the jury pool coming from NYC?  In 2016, 79% of the city's vote went for Clinton.  In 2020, 76% of the vote went for Biden.  And we are supposed to believe that Trump can get a fair trial in NYC?  Bull!

  

Six Months Ago Today

It was six months ago, on October 7, 2023, that Hamas terrorists made their way into Israel, and murdered over 1200 Israelis of all ages, engaging in rape and torture in the process.  Some 130 or so hostages remain in captivity in Gaza.  Many of us will never forget those terrible feelings we had of anguish and agony and anger, after learning of the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  Yet, a short six months later, much of the world seems to have forgotten who started this war, forgotten about the hostages and turned against Israel.  Unfortunately, that includes many Democrats, including the President and those in his administration.  

We saw Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish official in the US government, turn on Israel, when he called for the removal from office of Israel's democratically elected Prime Minister.  We heard from Vice President Kamala Harris, telling Israel that "any major military operation in Gaza (presumably referring to Rafah) would be a mistake."  (See the two part post, "Just Where Do The Democrats Stand On Israel?' - March 24, 2024.)  

Then, on March 27, we had the US (President Biden) refusing to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Gaza/Hamas.  That resolution, while also calling for the release of the hostages, did not tie the ceasefire demand to the hostages actual release.  Furthermore, Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza, have never engaged in a ceasefire, launching over 20,000 rockets and missiles into Israel since Israel left the Gaza strip in 2005.  Worse yet, Hamas has promised to repeat their murderous attack of October 7 over and over and over again.  So, yes, by all means, let's call for a meaningless ceasefire.

Following an Israeli air strike in Gaza that killed seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen, Biden now calls directly for an immediate ceasefire.  And just to make sure that the Israeli government got the message, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that "If we don't see the changes we need to see...there will be a change in our policy."  

Piling on were 40 members of Congress, all Democrats, in a letter sent to Biden and Blinken.  "In light of the recent strike against aid workers and the ever-worsening humanitarian crisis, we believe it is unjustifiable to approve (additional) weapons transfers (to Israel)."  Let's forget for the moment that the US killed 10 civilians on a missile strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2021.  Let's forget that seven of those killed were children.  And let's forget that, unlike what Israel has done now, the US was not quick to admit its mistake.  And, let's also forget that terrible things happen in war.  That innocent civilians get killed.  There are endless famous quotes concerning the horrors of war.  

Yet, as today's Democrats do, they fail to realize that appeasement of the enemy does not result in peace, but rather in more war.  The Obama and now Biden administrations, have a solid history of trying to appease the enemies of the United States and of the civilized world.  And make no mistake - Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the US, and is funded by the leading state sponsor of terrorism on the planet - Iran.  

In typical fashion, the Democrats are putting all the pressure on a democratic ally to do more, to concede more, to allow Hamas to survive, and to reward the Palestinians for the events of October 7 with a state of their own.  This is directly out of the Democrat playbook.  It is not the peace through strength advocated by wiser leaders from Washington to Reagan.  It is endless war through appeasement. 

Does it matter to Biden and these Democrats that some of the remaining hostages are Americans?  It would be hard to tell.  Does it matter to Biden and these Democrats that approximately 200,000 Israelis have been made refugees in their own country (in the south of Israel because of Hamas, and in the north of Israel because of Hezbollah joining in the fight with numerous rocket and missile attacks on Israel as well).  

Here's an idea.  If the US so disapproves of the way Israel is carrying out this war for its survival, why not announce the following.  Tell Hamas and the other terrorists, that Israel has agreed to stand down, because the United States intends to flood Gaza with hundreds of thousands of US troops, to remain indefinitely in Gaza, in order to ensure the release of the hostages, and the surrender of Hamas.  Unless, of course, Hamas sees that it is wiser to voluntarily surrender  But that will never happen.  Instead, the US will be building a pier along the Gaza coast, which will give Hamas free reign to smuggle in whatever additional weapons they can, which they will then use in the next attack on Israel.  Another foreign policy win for Biden!    

Just Where Do The Democrats Stand On Israel, Part II

Senate Majority Leader Schumer apparently felt the need to emphasize the importance of Israel having elections, with an eye towards replacing Netanyahu.  In case the Israelis did not get the message, he added that the U.S. may "have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course."  That's nice.  What did you have in mind, Chucky?  Cut off military aid in the middle of a war?  

Here was the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris:  "Any major military operation in Gaza (presumably referring to Rafah) would be a huge mistake."  Why is that?  Don't we want Hamas to be defeated?  Why does the left seem to have a problem with winning wars?  Harris:  "I have studied the maps, there's nowhere for these folks to go, and we're looking at about a million and a half people in Rafah who are there because they were told to go there."

Oh, she studied the maps.  What a condescending tone and attitude.  If you studied the maps, Madam VP, you would see an area known as the Sinai peninsula, which is part of Egypt, bordering Gaza.  If Egypt let them all go through their border with Gaza, the Sinai is more than large enough to accommodate all those people.  But Egypt does not want them.  Jordan does not want them.  I know the rationale - maybe Israel will not them back into Gaza after the war.  Except, Egypt and Jordan never wanted them.

Harris:  "...we have been very clear far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed."  That is a sad fact of any war - innocent civilians being killed.  What I do not understand is why isn't the United States putting the pressure on Hamas and their supporters?  Hamas started this war.  Hamas could at least get a ceasefire by releasing the hostages.  Or, they could simply surrender.   

A confession.  My wife and I watched the Oscars.  I saw a Ukrainian film maker speak proudly in the defense of his people in their war with Russia.  I saw actor Ramy Youssef, a proud Muslim, joining others in wearing a pin that read "Artists 4 Ceasefire."  What about the Jews?  Steven Spielberg, perhaps the most well known Jew in attendance, also spoke.  Anything about the hostages?  Nope.  Did I see anyone wearing yellow ribbons for the hostages?  Nope.  

But I did see Jonathan Glazer speak, following his acceptance of an award for "The Zone of Interest."  Glazer:  "Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.  Whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza - all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?"  Did he just refute his Jewishness? 

One left-wing site, Vox, said he was misunderstand.  Rather, Glazer was saying that Jewishness and the Holocaust should not be used justify the attack on Gaza,  Maybe.  It is a plausible interpretation of Glazer's remarks.  But even so, why wasn't the attack on Hamas in Gaza justified?  And why did Glazer suggest that the conflict resulted from the "occupation?'  No, the conflict results from 100 years of Jew hatred by Arabs in the historic land of Palestine.  (And for those not familiar with the history, Palestine was never a country.  It was also understand as the homeland of the Jewish people.)

On the good news front, over 450 other Jews in Hollywood, including actors and producers, wrote a rebuttal to Glazer.  "We refute our Jewishness being hijacked for the purpose of drawing a moral equivalence between a Nazi regime (Hamas) that sought to exterminate a race of people (Jews), and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination."   

A final note.  Michelle Goldberg is an Op-Ed writer for the New York Times.  In her Sunday, March 17, 2024 column she said, among other things, this:  "I'm a secular Jew with no particular attachment to Israel."  Uh-huh.  What?  Actually, I get the secular Jew part.  There are quite a few secular Jews here and even in Israel.  I do not get the "no particular attachment to Israel."  It is sad that she has no attachment to her fellow Jews in Israel.  It is sad that has no attachment to the land of Israel.  I don't follow her enough to now how much she may have been affected by the events of October 7.  

But she knows enough to say in her column that "rituals for the two most important Jewish holidays, Passover and Yom Kippur, culminate with the words 'next year in Jerusalem.'"  To which I would add:  "Am Yisrael Chai!"  The People of Israel Live!"  I hope that Ms. Goldberg will come to understand that Jews everywhere are the people of Israel.    

Just Where Do The Democrats Stand On Israel? Part I

Last week, Senate Majority Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish official in the US government, gave a speech about the current conflict between Hamas and Israel.  After discussing his long term support for Israel, and after discussing the atrocities committed by Hamas, he turned to the "two-state solution."  This is a topic that greatly concerns Democrats, and seems to do so to an extent that it overrides discussion of the hostages.  Because the hostages, along with the defeat of Hamas, should be the only focus currently.  We need a return of the hostages; and either the surrender or defeat of Hamas.

Here are some of Schumer's comments.  "Right now, there are four major obstacles standing in the way of two states...(1) Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways, (2) radical right-wing Israelis in government and society, (3) Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and (4) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."  How nice.  Schumer equates Netanyahu, the duly elected Prime Minister in the only democratic country in the area, with the terrorists in Hamas and with the PA, another terror supporting group.  

I will not repeat here the numerous times that the Palestinians have been offered a state.  I will say that the first offer came in 1947 - the same time when the Jews were offered a state, when the UN General Assembly voted what came to be known as "partition" of  the land formerly under British control since WWI (aka the British Mandate, also called Mandatory Palestine).  The Arabs refused and immediately declared war on the Jewish state.  The Democrats will not acknowledge reality - for 75 years the Arabs have had one goal - the destruction of Israel and killing all the Jews.  That's the holdup to peace!  

Schumer tells us that Hamas and "the minority of Palestinians who support Hamas," should have no role in a future Palestinian state.  But is it a minority of the Palestinians that support Hamas?  An Op-Ed in the 3/14/24 Wall Street Journal (by Amit Segal) quotes poll results from "Arab World for Research and Development, affiliated with Ramallah-based Birzeit University."  According to that poll, 59% of Palestinians say they "extremely support" Hamas, with an additional 16% saying they "somewhat support" Hamas.  Segal:  "It's time the (Biden) administration recognizes reality:  the Palestinians overwhelmingly support the murder of Jews, and the Israelis don't think the Palestinians deserve a state."

Segal is perhaps unaware of my oft stated truism in the blog:  "liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs."  Schumer then says there must be "reform" of the PA.  Finally, he says there must be new elections in Israel, believing that Netanyahu would be replaced.  Abbas was elected as president of the PA in 2005, for a four year term.  We are now 20 years down the road and there has been no further election.  Why didn't Schumer call for new elections in the West Bank?  Is it because he fears that the people would continue to elect leaders who want to destroy Israel?  

What is up with calling for new elections in Israel, and saying that Netanyahu needs to go.  I thought that the Democrats opposed election interference from foreign countries.  Isn't that what the whole Russian collusion story was all about?  But now Democrats favor the US interfering with the election in a democratic, sovereign nation, that happens to be our strongest and best ally in the Middle East.  Nice.  President Biden, when asked to comment on Schumer's speech, said it was "good."  Ask me if I think there was coordination between the White House and Schumer with regards to Schumer's speech, and I will tell you: "100%."  

Netanyahu said this in reply:  "...no international pressure will stop us from realizing all of the goals of the war:  eliminating Hamas, freeing all of our hostages and ensuring that Gaza never again constitutes a threat to Israel."  In order to prevent that threat, Israel will need to maintain security control in Gaza for the foreseeable future.  

There is no doubt that President Biden has been very supportive of Israel in their war with Hamas.  But that support has softened, with various people in the Biden Administration now warning Israel against going into Rafah, the last stronghold of Hamas in Gaza.  Netanyahu:  "You cannot say you support Israel's goal of destroying Hamas and then oppose Israel when it takes the actions necessary to achieve that goal.  To leave Hamas in power in Rafah is to lose the war, and to replace Hamas with Fatah is to lose the peace."  

In a March 19, 2024 editorial in the WSJ, we are told that "The joke around Jerusalem is that while Mr. Biden once worked to help Israel after Oct. 7, he's now working on the "two-state solution":  Michigan and Nevada."  Indeed.  (See my two part post titled "Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan," from 2/17 and 2/18, 2024.)  It is impossible to ignore the effect US politics has on U.S. support for Israel in the current battle in the Middle East, especially in a presidential election year.      

Here We Go Again...And Again And Again

I shouldn't have to point out the obvious.  Every conservative knows this.  Liberals either refuse to acknowledge it, or simply do not care.  However, the reality is that we have two systems of justice in this country.  One for Republicans and one for Democrats.  Let's take a look.

In Fulton County, Georgia, we just had the Judge's decision about the District Attorney, Fani Willis.  "...The Court finds that the record made at the evidentiary hearing established that the District Attorney's prosecution (of Trump, et.al.) is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety."  "...an odor of mendacity remains."  To borrow a phrase, "I'm shocked, shocked, that there's lying going on!"

The Judge says that there are "reasonable questions about whether the DA and her hand-selected SADA testified truthfully about the timing of their relationship (which) is further underpinning the finding of an appearance of impropriety."  Now, one might think that DA Willis and SADA Nathan Wade would be ordered off the case, based on those findings.  One would be wrong.  The DA was given the option of recusing herself and her office, or simply firing Wade.  How nice.

But what about the fact that DA Willis made on-the-record comments to authors who were writing about the special grand jury's investigation - during the pendency of the case.  That was excused also.  How about the speech to a local church on January 14, 2024, when she claimed "they" (an obvious reference to the defense attorneys on the case) were playing the race card.  Yes, the Judge said such comments were "legally improper."  Apparently, however, nothing was going to get Ms. Willis ordered off the case.  And, if you were thinking that such bias might get the case dismissed entirely...seriously?

What about the case against Joe Biden that was investigated by Special Counsel Robert Hur, concerning Biden's alleged mishandling of classified documents.  At the time Biden mishandled those documents he was a Senator and a Vice President.  Therefore, he did not even have the argument that as President he had every right to take those documents.  Did Hur say Biden was guilty?  He said that Biden "willfully" retained classified documents in violation of the law.  

Then we got the excuse on behalf of Biden.  A jury would apparently find it difficult to convict, because Biden was a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," with "diminished faculties in advancing age."  I have never seen Biden as "well-meaning."  But here's a question - was he an "elderly man with a poor memory" when he took the documents as a senator or when he took them as VP.?  Just roll the tapes of him speaking back then for a jury.  (Although, I suppose one could argue that Biden has always had diminished faculties.)

We all recall what then FBI Director James Comey said about then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified documents and information.  Comey told us that of the 30,000 emails turned over to the FBI, 110 contained classified information, including Top Secret information.  Recall also that Clinton used a personal email server kept in the basement of her home.  The emails were not even as secure as if she had used gmail.  Comey described Clinton as being "extremely careless" in the "handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."  

Comey:  "She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries."  Yes, one would expect that our adversaries have listening and retrieving capabilities that are similar to our NSA.  But, of course, after declaring potential violations of the law, Comey excused it all with "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."  Why not?  Presumably because she is a Democrat.  And an insider.

Now we have a report by Forbes magazine that, according to the Director of National Archives, Information Security Oversight, boxes of classified information in unclassified containers have been found in every administration from the Reagan administration to the present.  Yet, only one high ranking official gets prosecuted for the mishandling of classified information and documents.  Donald Trump.  A Republican.  And an outsider.  I'm waiting for a single liberal I know to express outrage at the two standards of justice.  I'm just not holding my breath for it.

  

The Antisemitic Jew Haters Win Again, and D.E.I. Mandates at the Universities

What can you say about UC Berkeley?  As with many of these elite, and not so elite, colleges and universities, antisemites appear to get their way.  So, should we even be surprised that, in late February,  a pro-Hamas mob of about 200 students was able to prevent a speech that was to be given by Israeli lawyer and military member Ran Bar-Yoshafat at the UC Berkeley campus?  These "protesters" (I'm being polite as I do not curse in the blog) were heard shouting "intifada" and "free Palestine."  One Jewish student said a protester got in his face and yelled "Jew Jew Jew," before spitting on him. 

"Bears for Palestine" is a UC Berkeley group, Bears being the mascot of the school.  Here is what they thought of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7:  "Israel, as a settler colonial state, renders Palestinian existence inherently an act of resistance.  We invariably reject Israel's framing as a 'victim.'"  This statement was issued on October 7 following the attack.  The Bears for Palestine believe in a return to a "unified Palestine," where likely no Israel exists.  

As to Ran Bar-Yoshafat being shut down before he was able to utter a single word, the Bears for Palestine asserted that he "has committed crimes against humanity, is a genocide denier, and we will not allow this event to go on."  Wow!  The mob declared that the event would not go on, and lo and behold the event did not go on.  In fact, the speaker and the Jewish students present had to be led out of the auditorium for their own safety.  Wait...what?  Jewish students are no longer safe on an American college campus?  Exactly!

While the Berkeley chancellor condemned the mob for violating school rules, and while she said she wanted to keep the students safe and allow the speech to proceed, "it was not possible to do both given the size of the crowd and the threat of violence."  That is acknowledging more than just a "heckler's veto."  That is acknowledging the inability of the school to protect Jewish students while engaging in school activities.  

I like to ask questions.  Here's one.  Why wasn't there enough security?  Here are more.  Anticipating the likelihood of the protests, what arrangements were made to allow access to the auditorium through a single door that could be guarded?  Do we know who any of these protesters are?  Will they be expelled from school given that their actions went against the stated purpose of higher education - a free and open discussion and debate.  

Not coincidentally, the New York Times had an Op-Ed in their 3/8/24 print edition with this title:  "Civil Discourse on Campus Is Put to the Test."  The author, Pamela Paul, says the conference was sponsored by the Stanford Law School and the Stanford Graduate School of Education.  The issue was "restoring inclusive civil discourse on campus," asking "in today's heated political environment is that even possible?"  

One of the topics for discussion:  "diversity hiring statements," by which they mean "the requirement all job applicants demonstrate their commitment to advancing diversity, equity and inclusion goals."  There it is.  This is Stanford after all, just across the Bay from Berkeley.  I understand that students may need to discuss this on their college applications.  Nice to know that the professoriate must address this nonsense.  

At least one attendee at this conference saw through it:  "What they want are non-straights, non-whites and non-men.  But they don't say it that way.  There's a lack of forthrightness..."  Interestingly, in 2018 Berkeley "considered candidates' D.E.I. statements first, before looking at the rest of their applications.  Anyone whose D.E.I. statement didn't pass the first round was eliminated from the next pool."  

Berkeley received some criticism apparently, for not even considering someone's credentials.  You know - their merits.  But one attendee defended Berkeley, saying "...I would say that D.E.I. statements are credentials."  And he said this:  "This was just another and no less valid approach to narrowing the pool."  That is a perfect example of how even highly educated people can be completely asinine.  

A belief in, and actions taken toward promoting, D.E.I. now constitute valid qualifications for a job as a professor, equal to actual merit?  I would bet that the proponent of that idea does not even realize that he is promoting a political litmus test for the hiring of professors.  Maybe they'll ask this question of possible hires:  "if you are Jewish, please affirm your commitment to a Palestinian state and further affirm that you are not a Zionist."  There's a political litmus test that no doubt many in our universities would deem to be appropriate.  

The Non-Stop, and Unprecedented, Attacks On Donald Trump (The Ballot Case and the Presidential Immunity Case)

This time, the Democrats failed.  But not for lack of trying.  The Colorado Supreme Court had voted 4 to 3 to keep former President Trump off their ballot.  In separate actions, the Maine Secretary State declared Trump ineligible for their ballot, and a Chicago judge ruled that Trump should be kept off the Illinois ballot.  All these judges and the Maine official are Democrats.  Nearly 20 states in total were considering such action.  

Democrats, who love to say how they are the defenders of democracy, never hesitate to undermine our democratic system.  They have done so countless times.  They refused to accept that Trump won in 2016.  It was not just the loser, Hillary Clinton, who declared Trump to be an "illegitimate" President, but other Democrats and various Democratic-Mainstream Media Complex (D-MSMC) commentators as well.  Then, the Dems came up with an unsupported Russian collusion hoax, in an effort to remove a duly elected president from office.  How was that not an "insurrection?"  

They then came up with the prime time January 6 Committee, whose members were appointed entirely by then Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat.  She refused to allow two members of the House chosen by then minority leader Kevin McCarthy to sit on that committee.  That was unprecedented.  Prior to that, Pelosi ordered a second Trump impeachment proceeding without having any House Judiciary Committee hearings first; hearings where actual evidence is presented.  And prior to that, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did away with the filibuster rule as applied to all federal judges other than the Supreme Court.  Unprecedented actions...by Democrats.    

Today's Democrats have no greater respect for our institutions than they say Trump has.  But back to the case.  The 14th Amendment, in Section 3, prevents certain individuals from holding office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.  Trump appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court and won, Trump v. Anderson.  Trump won in a 9 to 0 per curiam (unsigned) opinion of SCOTUS.  The alternative, said the Court, would result in a "chaotic patchwork at odds with our Nation's federalism principle."  That should have been obvious to everyone.

The Court:  "Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings," such as the burden of proof required.  Indeed.  The election of the president is a nationwide election.  It is not something that a single state should be able to alter.  The Court did not decide whether the President is an "officer of the United States" under Section 3, as the word "president" is conspicuously absent.  Nor did the Court decide whether Trump engaged in an insurrection.  The Colorado Court did find in the affirmative on those issues.  

The US Supreme Court found that the Colorado decision would "sever the direct link that the Framers found so critical between the National Government and the people of the United States as a whole."  This especially applies to the Presidency, because that office "represent(s) all the voters in the Nation."  States are permitted to disqualify candidates for state offices under Section 3, said the Court, but not disqualify for federal offices.  But the majority went one step further in their decision, holding that Congress alone had the power to enforce a Section 3 disqualification for federal offices - as opposed to, say, the federal courts.  Four of the Justices disagreed with that determination.

As a result, the D-MSMC attempted to spin the decision as a 5 to 4 vote, blaming it all on the conservative appointees.  But that is not the truth, as all 9 Justices, including the liberal ones, agreed that individual states could not keep Trump, or any presidential (or other federal office) candidate, off the ballot.  The D-MSMC was all in by claiming that the wording of Section is clear and unambiguous.  No person shall hold office after engaging in insurrection .  So clear, right?   

Such as the First Amendment is so clear:  "Congress shall make NO law...abridging the freedom of speech."  No law.  Except...in interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court has declared various types of speech not protected by the First Amendment.  Defamatory speech (libel and slander), obscenity, child pornography, speech intended to cause imminent harm...all are not protected speech.  Not to mention the often used "time, place and manner" restrictions that used to be put on speech (although apparently not so much anymore).  So, for these leftwing commentators to say that the language of Section 3 is clear, and therefore that ends the discussion, is, shall we say, rather simplistic.       

The presidential immunity case is currently pending at the Supreme Court.  Do I believe that the prosecution being brought by Special Counsel Jack is politically motivated?  Absolutely.  After all, Trump announced his third try at the Presidency on November 15, 2022, and Merrick Garland appointed Smith on November 18, 2022.   

In terms of immunity from civil liability, the Supreme Court has held that a president has absolute immunity for conduct within the "outer perimeter" of their duties.  (Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 1982)  Under no circumstances would I imagine that the Court would grant absolute immunity from criminal liability.  The most extreme example would be that of a president charged with the crime of committing murder.  But maybe not.  Imagine this scenario.  A president orders a drone strike to take out a known terrorist.  But the drone also kills innocent civilians.  Do we allow any leftwing, antiwar prosecutor to file murder charges against that president?  Maybe not such a simple issue.     

Where should a line be drawn?  Will it hinge on whether a president can make the case that his actions were part of his official duties?  But does that raise other issues?  After all, the District Court of Appeals said "it would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity."  If that is the basis for a SCOTUS decision (unlikely in my opinion) then Biden is in trouble.  

He has bragged about his continuing student loan forgiveness, even after the Supreme Court said he had no such power.  Worse, he has failed - intentionally - to take care that the immigration laws of the United States be faithfully executed.  He has opened our borders, contrary to the laws passed by Congress, in a manner that is unprecedented.  Well over 7 million people have entered the country illegally since Biden took office.  It is a veritable invasion of our country without a single shot being fired.  This surrender of our nation's sovereignty can only be seen as an intentional act by the President.  It will have more far-reaching, and far longer, consequences, than the events of January 6.  Why shouldn't Biden be both impeached and prosecuted for that extreme dereliction of his duties, especially if you believe that the first duty of a president is to protect the American people.