Two-Tiered Justice & Trump Wins, Perhaps Unanimously - Top 3 Takeaways – February 9th, 2024
- A sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Just to be clear...President Biden isn’t being prosecuted for his “willful” illegal possession of classified documents which according to the special prosecutor's report was a practice that went back decades. He’s not being pursued for prosecution because he’s a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. While special prosecutor Robert Hur’s report was damning in numerous ways for President Biden that no doubt will be used by team Trump against him in this presidential election cycle...just know that apparently any person who comes across as sympathetic and well-meaning, while being elderly with a poor memory, apparently has free reign to commit whatever crimes they want in this country now. After all, if no person, even the president, is “above the law” as we’ve been told so many times in reference to the former and perhaps future President of the United States – than it must be true that Dementia Joe is held to the same standard...right? So, either the law no longer applies to sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly men with poor memories or there’s a two-tiered justice system in this country given that Trump is being prosecuted for far less than what Joe Biden willfully illegally did over the course of decades. Actions that were detailed in the report as placing our country’s national security at risk. Although he happens to do daily in his current occupation. But while President Biden and Democrats generally continue to benefit from a corrupt two-tiered Department of Justice...the court of public opinion isn’t likely going to be as friendly. Consider this from CNN: Special counsel Robert Hur’s report released Thursday did not charge President Joe Biden with a crime, but it painted a picture of a forgetful commander in chief who failed to properly protect highly sensitive classified information – a depiction that could hurt Biden politically. The special counsel report found that Biden willfully retained classified information, including top secret documents, and knew he was in possession of some documents as far back as 2017. He also shared some of that information with the ghostwriter of his 2017 memoir. Hur laid out in detail how Biden mishandled classified materials, writing that FBI agents discovered materials from “the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, home.” The materials included classified documents, including some marked at the highest top secret/sensitive compartmented information level, related to military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, as well as and notebooks “containing Mr. Biden’s handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence source and methods.” If that’s what CNN is reporting...
- Trump wins. That is the eventual outcome of the ballot access case before the United States Supreme Court yesterday. And it’s a decision that’s likely to come sooner rather than later given that we’re talking about presidential ballot access during a presidential nomination cycle. The Supreme Court’s decision could decide whether Donald Trump is on the ballot in dozens of states in the general election should he become the Republican Presidential nominee. And the reason this is a given isn’t because the Supreme Court is currently a so-called “conservative” court, it’s because the law pertaining to the insurrection clause in the constitution is that clear. As I mentioned initially in addressing this topic after the Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove Trump from ballots citing the Insurrection Clause to the United States Constitution... The constitutional law on this is clear. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads like this: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. A lot of constitutional law is complicated. This clause, however, is rather straightforward in part due to the level of specificity within it. Notice that nowhere within that Amendment, which is very specific as to the offices which can be disqualified under it, do you find the office of the Presidency of the United States. Donald Trump has been indicted in four criminal cases with 91 different charges brought against him. Not one of those charges is for insurrection which was the premise of this and any case before state courts seeking to remove Trump from the ballot. Think about that. In a federal witch hunt designed to get Trump, there wasn’t enough evidence to even attempt to bring related charges against the former and perhaps future President of the United States. This includes one of the criminal cases being entirely brought based on Trump’s alleged role in the January 6th riot at the Capitol and alleged role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The bottom line is Trump could be found guilty in all these cases, and on all of 91 of the outstanding counts against him, and yet would still not be guilty of doing what’s necessary for one to be disqualified from running for president or holding the office of the presidency. Yet the Colorado Supreme Court not only decided Trump was guilty of insurrection, but then to be removed from the state’s ballot. It’s a patently absurd legal argument. And that’s precisely the way that it was handled in the line of questioning at the Supreme Court yesterday. Throughout the line of questioning, I had the feeling that Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor were seeking to arrive at a consensus opinion. And this is important. As polarized and politicized as this country already is, in this ruling, it’s important that the ruling isn’t perceived to be a political one.
- The rule of democracy. It was on November 1st, with the trial underway in Colorado seeking to remove Donald Trump from the state’s ballot that I said this: Why, if this clause was meant to prevent someone from becoming president, does it state that one can’t be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or an elector of the President and Vice-President, but not also specifically state President or Vice President of the United States? To the extent that there is any grey territory in that clause the argument is now that a man who hasn’t even been charged with insurrection criminally and who was acquitted of it congressionally is not only guilty of it and should be disqualified from an office that also isn’t included in the clause...and even then that doesn’t account for a legal principal known as “the rule of democracy”, which is a legal precedent whereby the judiciary is to pay credence to the will of the people to govern themselves including the candidates they want to represent their interests. As it turned out both Justices Kavanagh and Jackson referenced “the rule of democracy in this context”. I had a feeling this case could come down to that point which is why I emphasized the legal concept in my initial analysis of the case. And in fact, perhaps the most important statement posed by a justice during the hearing addressed that point. The statement came from Justice Jackson when she said to attorney Jason Murray representing the Colorado PAC seeking to keep Trump off ballots: “Why didn't they put the word president in the very enumerated list in section three? The thing that really is troubling to me is I totally understand your argument, but they were listing people that were barred, and president is not there. Doesn’t that at least suggest ambiguity? Shouldn’t we err on the side of democracy?” The right decision in this case is a unanimous decision and while I don’t know what the final breakout will be, based on yesterday’s hearing I think it’s unlikely to break along perceived ideological lines and perhaps most likely could be unanimous. That would be in the best interests of this country. Trump wins this case in the end and the biggest question at this point, aside from whether it is unanimous, is how broad the court decides for this ruling to be. That’s really the only drama that will exist when the decision drops.