TRUMP IN THE SUPREME COURT

BY JOHN HINDERAKER | POWERLINE.COM

Former President Donald Trump appears at Manhattan criminal court before his trial in New York, Friday, April 26, 2024. (Jeenah Moon/Pool Photo via AP)

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s case against Donald Trump was argued in the Supreme Court today. The issue is the extent to which ex-presidents are entitled to immunity for acts committed while they were in office. The New York Times covered the arguments with live updates. Here are some excerpts:

Overall, several justices — maybe a majority — appear to have suggested through their questions that presidents should indeed enjoy some level of immunity from criminal prosecution. The questions seem to be how to decide what actions are protected from criminal charges and whether the allegations in Trump’s indictment in particular would qualify for immunity.

Presidents surely should have immunity with regard to some official acts, perhaps all. There is no question about the fact that some presidential acts are immune:

Dreeben says there are some core constitutional functions of a presidency — he cites the pardon power, the power to recognize foreign nations, the power to veto legislation, the power to make appointments — that Congress cannot regulate and so criminal statutes cannot be applied to such actions. Justice Gorsuch declares that is essentially immunity for some official acts.

Smith is persecuting Trump under a fraud conspiracy statute that, as some justices pointed out, is vague:

Justice Alito now joins Justice Kavanaugh in suggesting that the fraud conspiracy statute is very vague and broadly drawn. That is bad news for the indictment brought against Trump by Jack Smith, the special counsel.

The Times reporters are grotesquely biased against not just Trump, but Republicans. For example:

During the George W. Bush administration, memos about post-9/11 surveillance and torture were written by a politically appointed lawyer with idiosyncratically broad views of a president’s supposed power, as commander in chief, to authorize violations of surveillance and torture laws. The Justice Department later withdrew those memos as espousing a false view of the law, but held that officials who had taken action based on those memos could not be charged with crimes.

The “politically appointed lawyer with idiosyncratically broad views of a president’s power” was, I believe, John Yoo. No Democrat could ever be a politically appointed lawyer with idiosyncratic views. And Yoo’s views were not idiosyncratic. I don’t recall that either he or anyone else wrote memos about the president’s “supposed power…to authorize violations of surveillance and torture laws.” The memos I recall addressed the question of what constitutes “torture” within the meaning of federal law, and concluded–correctly, in my opinion–that the interrogation techniques then being used on terrorists were not torture within the meaning of the statute. The “Justice Department”–that is, the Democratic Party Justice Department under Barack Obama–did withdraw those memos, in what I think was a political act. But of course, those lawyers were not “politically appointed” and didn’t have “idiosyncratic views.”

But that was all a digression. Steve no doubt knows more about it.

The Supreme Court justices no doubt care about the future prospect of either 1) lawless presidents or 2) a cycle of meritless prosecution of presidents once they leave office. (And believe me, when Joe Biden leaves office I hope Republicans can find a way to bring multiple criminal prosecutions against him.) But Jack Smith cares only about getting a conviction between now and November, however flimsy his theory may be. That appears doubtful; this is the Times’s summation:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready on Thursday to rule that former presidents have substantial immunity from criminal prosecution, a move that would further delay the criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election.

Such a ruling would most likely send the case back to the trial court to draw distinctions between official and private conduct. Those proceedings could make it hard to conduct the trial before the 2024 election.

Which would defeat the whole point of Smith’s prosecution. Finally, a comic note:

But a ruling in early summer, even if it categorically rejected Mr. Trump’s position, would make it hard to complete his trial before the election. Should Mr. Trump win at the polls, there is every reason to think he would scuttle the prosecution.

Well yes, one would think so!

DA Finally Reveals Underlying Crime Trump Allegedly Committed, and the Bidens Should be Nervous

By Jennifer Van Laar | RedState.com

AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, Pool

Prosecutors in Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office have finally revealed the underlying crime they allege Donald Trump was committing when he allegedly falsified business records.

According to Fox News, "New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass on Tuesday said the other crime was a violation of a New York law called 'conspiracy to promote or prevent election.'"

That law, New York Law 17-152, reads:

Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Speaking of Michael Cohen, former National Enquirer owner David Pecker, and Donald Trump, Steinglass' co-counsel Michael Colangelo argued that in 2015:

"Those three men formed a conspiracy to influence the election."

However, none of the allegedly falsified business records were dated in 2015; every alleged instance was in 2017. The falsified payments are transactions in which Trump's business paid Cohen; Trump says the payments were for legal services and not reimbursement for any monies Cohen might have paid to Stormy Daniels.

Speaking of Daniels, she still owes Trump $300,000 plus interest after pursuing a frivolous lawsuit against him. 

According to Colangelo, the mechanics of the "catch and kill" conspiracy were that Cohen would notify Pecker about stories that Trump wanted buried, Pecker would buy the information and the rights to the story so that the story wouldn't be published anywhere. The ultimate source of the funds used to purchase the rights to the stories, according to prosecutors, was Trump, through his payments to Cohen.

In addition to the alleged payoff to Stormy Daniels, Colangelo said there were two other instances in which the practice was used:

One was to block a story that a former Trump Tower doorman was trying to sell about an alleged out-of-wedlock child. Colangelo said the payment was $30,000. The doorman’s story was eventually proven to be untrue.

The next payment was to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed a romantic and sexual relationship with Trump. Colangelo alleged that Cohen asked AMI to buy the story. Colangelo said AMI paid McDougal $150,000 in exchange for "unlimited life rights" to her story.

There are a few legal problems with the prosecution's theory. First, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are not illegal, and the underlying statute says that there has to be a conspiracy "to promote or prevent the election...by unlawful means."

Second, as Andrew McCarthy pointed out, there is nothing in the indictment about a scheme or conspiracy:

The grand jury did not accuse Trump of a 'scheme' — much less a conspiracy — in its indictment. This is a matter of Bragg using a 'Statement of Facts' he wrote in order to spin the grand jury’s indictment into a grand election-theft conspiracy that the grand jury did not actually charge.

I’ll repeat that because it bears noting: The grand jury did not accuse Trump of a “scheme” — much less a conspiracy — in its indictment. This is a matter of Bragg using a “Statement of Facts” he wrote in order to spin the grand jury’s indictment into a grand election-theft conspiracy that the grand jury did not actually charge.

Bragg cannot use the word conspiracy because a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. It is not a crime to suppress damaging information — that is something politicians do all the time. Withholding information is only a crime when there is a legal obligation to divulge the information. Politicians, of course, are not legally required to divulge extramarital affairs in political campaigns.

Also, the statute of limitations on all misdemeanors in New York State is two years. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV either, so I'm not entirely sure that the underlying crime for the falsification of business records charge has to be within the statute of limitations.

If this silly legal fairy tale somehow results in a conviction, all of the people involved in "catch-and-kill" related to the 2020 election, including the 51 former intelligence officials who lied about the origins of the Hunter Biden laptop story, those who arranged for the New York Post's story to be censored, and people who conspired to deplatform those who said anything negative about Joe Biden, better watch out.

Bill Barr's 2024 Decision Might Irritate Some, But It Shows He Knows Who the Real Enemy Is

By Matt Vespa | Townhall.com

Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP

Former Attorney General William Barr has been a vocal Donald Trump critic since leaving the Department of Justice. There were points where you’d think Barr was becoming infected with the MSNBC bug, bolstering liberal talking points about the former president in the hopes of landing more guest spots on television. How many former aides have become Benedict Arnolds? This list stretches the length of the Eastern Seaboard. 

Barr was smeared as Trump’s errand boy during his presidency. That was never the case. And while he has been brutal in his assessment of Trump and his potential return, he’s backing his former boss again in 2024 because the far left is the greater threat to America (via NY Post):

Former Attorney General Bill Barr is backing his old boss in the November election despite their very public fallout — because he believes the “far left” is an even greater threat to the US. 

Barr, 73, disputed the notion that former President Donald Trump will be worse for democracy than President Biden, and warned about the rise of the “far left.”

“The Biden administration is in fact the greater threat to democracy,” Barr told Fox News’ “Cavuto Live” on Saturday. 

“I think that they have a totalitarian temper. They have bought into the progressive movement. And they’re trying to squelch opposition and freedom of speech.” 

In February, Barr said, "Voting for Trump is playing Russian roulette with the country. Voting for Biden is outright national suicide."

At least he knows who the true enemy is.

A Spring Semester Final Exam for Democrats

By Allen West | Townhall.com

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

All across these United States of America college and university students are preparing for Spring semester final exams. Well, maybe not so much on the campus of Columbia University, where they are busy chanting intifada and revolution—serious calls to violence. I want to honor this special time, which is a rite of passage for college students, and still, to this day, a cause of nightmares for me when I have dreams. I am still in college and have not studied. I have created a Spring semester final exam for Democrats. Please submit your exam responses to Townhall.com.

Each question on this exam is worth 10 points, and the maximum score is 200. Red marks will be used to evidence wrong responses and deduction of points, regardless of how it may hurt your feelings. There will be no averaging of exam scores because I do not believe in mediocrity or equity—the forced implementation of equality of outcomes.

1. Recently, the Democrat-controlled US Senate dismissed the impeachment charges against DHS Secretary Alejandro Majorkas. Is it acceptable to lie to the US Congress, meaning the American people, and support a policy that undermines the sovereignty of the United States of America? Is it only acceptable for members of a Democratic administration to lie and enable policies that violate our Constitution?

2: Do you believe that America is a sovereign nation?

3: Is America a Constitutional Republic or a Democracy? Please explain your answer.

4: Do you believe that allowing illegal immigrants to participate in American elections, at any level, is a threat to our representative democracy? Do you believe that including the counting of illegal immigrants in the US census presents a threat to our representative democracy?

5: There have been millions of illegal immigrant single military-age males, including tens of thousands of Chinese males, who have been granted entry into this Constitutional Republic. Recently, an Obama-appointed federal judge from Illinois wrote a legal opinion asserting that illegal immigrants are entitled to Second Amendment rights. Do you agree with the Federal judge? If so, explain why you would grant those who violated our Constitution a constitutional right?

6: Do you believe that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans due to fentanyl poisoning, a chemical developed in China and illegally infiltrated into America, constitutes a chemical warfare attack by the Communist Chinese Party? Do you consider the Biden administration’s open border policies as an enabler of the deaths of Americans?

7: Human and sex trafficking have become disconcerting issues facing America since the open borders policy of the Biden administration. Do you believe that this policy is aiding and abetting human and sex trafficking? How would you explain the loss of some 85-90K children?

8: Do you believe that the Mexican cartels are a transnational narco-criminal terrorist organization? What would you propose as a solution to undermine their rise in power?

9: Does violating the Constitution and failing to execute the prescribed enumerated duties and responsibilities articulated constitute a high crime and misdemeanor for a President?

10: Do illegal immigrants deserve taxpayer-funded benefits and be prioritized over American citizens and our Veterans?

11: What is your definition of sedition and treason? Does openly supporting an Islamic terrorist organization, or any organization, that has killed Americans constitute sedition and treason?

12: Should elected officials who took an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America be allowed to support terrorist organizations, openly displaying their banners and spreading their propaganda?

13: The Biden administration is currently in violation of the Taylor Force Act by giving financial aid and support to entities that support terrorists and their families. What should be the consequences for the Biden administration?

14: Please provide historical and empirical evidence of a nation, kingdom, or sovereign entity called Palestine. Also, give a short explanation of how that designation came to be applied to the littoral region where the Mediterranean Sea touches the Middle East. Also, what other names have been used to refer to the same region?

15: Please explain why there should be a ceasefire against a non-state, non-uniform belligerent on the battlefield which is designated as a terrorist organization that has in its charter the genocide of an entire race of people and a recognized Nation, especially after crossing the sovereign border and killing 1,200 men, women, and children of said sovereign Nation.

16: Prior to the Biden administration, Iran was functionally bankrupt as a Nation, having less than $5 billion in cash reserves. The Biden administration has sought to re engage the Iranian nuclear agreement (bypassing the US Senate), has enabled enriching Iran by easing sanctions against their oil and gas industry exports (China being their #1 customer), and has sent billions in cash to the number one financier of Islamic terrorism. Is the Biden administration guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism and providing material support and comfort to the enemy? Remember, Iranian-supported Hezbollah was responsible for the deaths of 234 Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers on October 23, 1983, and the distribution of the deadly EFPs (Explosive Force Penetrator) improvised explosive devices into Iraq.

17: China, Iran, and Hezbollah are all working with the Maduro regime in Venezuela. These entities are paying the Mexican cartels to transport them across our open border, a policy of the Biden administration. Do you believe that the Biden administration has created a national security threat for America?

18: Kate Steinle, Lakin Riley, Lisbeth Medina, and Mollie Tibbets all share a common demise. Do you believe that illegal immigrants are more important than their lives?

19: What should be the consequences for those who are supporting an Islamic terrorist organization and its survival, who are obstructing and disrupting official government proceedings such as Congressional hearings?

20: Objectively describe and explain if you agree with the Biden administration’s National Security Advisor that the Middle East is the most peaceful it has been in 20 years.

This final exam can also be utilized by all Americans as a policy guide as you prepare for the biggest Fall final exam this Country may ever face on November 5, 2024. Stay tuned, we just may have a study guide we will produce in October 2024 to assist with exam preparation.

Let me reiterate the famed words of a great American, Eugene Francis Kranz, aka Gene Kranz, who once asserted, "Failure is not an option.” America can ill afford to fail the Fall final exam in November 2024, meaning we cannot allow those who will fail this Spring semester final exam to EVER find themselves in elected power in our Constitutional Republic.

Now is the time to prepare for when they fail in November because just like an imbecile, temperamental, spoiled brat student...they are going to throw a tantrum.

Steadfast and Loyal.

WATCH: Black PA Voters Let Biden Know They Want Trump, One Man Breaks Down the Choice in Simple Terms

By Nick Arama | RedState.com

AP Photo/Adam Bettcher

Joe Biden has been doing Pennsylvania campaign events all this week, going to Scranton, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia. The race is basically neck and neck in Pennsylvania, according to the RCP average. Former President Donald Trump is up in all the other battleground states. 

A reporter in Scranton put Biden on the defensive, noting that when he drives around, he sees lots of Trump signs but "not very many Biden signs," and asked whether he thought he was in trouble. Biden got ticked off and said, "You're not driving in the right places, pal." That "pal" is Biden's tell that he's mad. 

But that's the problem that Biden faces right now. He may not want to acknowledge it, but there's no enthusiasm for him. Many don't want to vote for him. He's losing support from black and Hispanic voters. Even Democrats on the left aren't happy with him and may not end up voting for him over Gaza. That's why his campaign has him running all over Pennsylvania. 

There were black voters in Pittsburgh who were Trump supporters. Newsmax reporter Addison Smith caught two guys who had a special message for Joe Biden there.

_______________

POST ON "X"

Addison Smith @AddisonSmithTV

People gather awaiting Biden’s arrival in Pittsburgh to show him their “Donald Trump is who we want” signs.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO.

_______________

They're doing this in Pittsburgh at a Biden event, so they're pretty brave. But that says something right there — that folks are willing to put it out there like that. 

Biden was faced in Philadelphia with the anti-Israel folks who said they were going to be voting uncommitted. 

Smith also spoke with a guy who broke it down in terms that would resonate with everyone on Thursday in Philadelphia. He pointed out how they were having the event there for Biden and that there were a lot of Americans "struggling," but Biden was helping illegal aliens, "When are you going to help American people?" he asked. 

_____________

POST ON "X"

Addison Smith @AddisonSmithTV

Black Philly voter says Biden’s made America “look like a joke.”

“We need Trump back.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE VIDEO.

________________

The voter then went into something that isn't said enough now in media: that Biden made us "look weak" with his failed withdrawal from Afghanistan. "Now people don't take us serious," he said. "They look at us like a joke." 

"On top of that, you're not mentally capable of running the country, bro," he said to Biden. 

He was asked by the Newsmax reporter, "Who is?" 

"Trump," the voter declared. "He's quick to push buttons, but that's what we need. We need a hard fist for this country...Biden, he's going through Alzheimer's; he's a joke. Trump? He don't play around, man; he gets things done. You see action, man. We don't need that POS in the office." He then apologized for cursing. 

"We need Trump back because he got things done, and we see results," the man exclaimed. 

That, in a nutshell, breaks it down to simple. I think it's the thought pattern of many who will be voting for Trump, and that's why Biden is in trouble. They know how much better they had it under Trump; they can compare the difference, and Biden comes up wanting on virtually every point. 

Elon Musk Calls NPR CEO 'One of the Worst Human Beings in America,' Announces Campaign for 1st Amendment

By Bob Hoge | RedState.com

Patrick Pleul/Pool via AP, File

National Public Radio CEO Katherine Maher has been thoroughly exposed as a radical in recent days as one of NPR’s veteran editors—Uri Berliner—actually told the truth and revealed that the taxpayer-sponsored “news organization” is hopelessly biased toward the progressive viewpoint. For this transgression, he was promptly suspended; he said thank you but take a hike, I’m resigning.

The highly publicized back-and-forth led inquiring minds to take a closer look at Maher’s past, and what they found out is that she’s a radical extremist who thinks the leftist narrative is more important than the actual truth and that those who don’t stick to said narrative should be silenced in the name of “progress.” She has her right to these opinions—but she doesn’t have the right to use our taxpayer money to foist them on the American public.

If you’re of a certain age, you’ll remember the famous TV commercials where entrepreneur Victor Kiam would come on the screen and say, “I liked the shaver so much, I bought the company [Remington].” Elon Musk took a similar approach; he values free speech so highly that he shelled out $44 billion in 2022 to buy social media platform Twitter (now X), in part to fight rampant big-tech censorship. He promptly canned 80 percent of the company’s workforce, reinstated accounts that had been banned, and completely overhauled the company’s free speech policies.

And he’s certainly no fan of the former CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, Maher, who took over as NPR CEO in March.

______________

POST ON "X"

Elon Musk @elonmusk

Katherine Maher is blatantly racist and sexist – one of the worst human beings in America

______________

Whoa! Elon, tell us how you really feel. 

It was one in a number of posts he’s made since the NPR story broke. 

He also posted “Defund NPR,” “NPR has become a hard left propaganda machine that tolerates no dissent,” “It’s ok for a commercial media orgs to have political bias, but not taxpayer-funded orgs!,” and more.

He’s dead right on all those—there’s no way our taxpayer dollars should be supporting extremist wackos like Maher—but it appears that Musk is going to do more than just sit back and post to X. 

At this point, it’s unclear what form such an effort would take, and he has not provided more details as of this writing. But while many thought he was bluffing when he first brought up the notion of buying Twitter, Musk has proven he is capable of taking bold (and expensive) steps. 

Without knowing more, I nevertheless welcome his statement because the more influential people we have fighting the scourge that is Big Tech and Big Media censorship—egged on and abetted by progressives and Democrats—the better. We saw during the COVID era just how devastating censorship can be and how we can be simultaneously lied to and silenced by people who seem to pay no consequences for their trampling of the First Amendment. 

Musk is 100 percent correct to call out this loon running NPR, and I hope his “national signature campaign in support of the First Amendment" has some teeth to it.

Israel's Retaliatory Strike Crossed an Iranian 'Red Line,' Will the Mullahs Take the Bait or Move on?

By streiff | RedState.com

AP Photo/Ariel Schalit, File

Israel carried out a drone and missile strike inside Iran Thursday night in retaliation for the massive strike on Israel Sunday. Israel targeted facilities around Isfahan in central Iran, where Iranian nuclear facilities are located.

The primary target seems to have been air defense systems around the Khatami Air Base near Isfahan. This is one of the bases from which last weekend's attack on Israel was launched.

According to reports, the US was given notice of the attack at only the last minute.

Speaking at the end of a meeting of the Group of Seven nations in Capri, Italy, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said that the U.S. was informed by Israel “at the last minute of the attack” early Friday morning.

“There was no involvement on the part of the United States, it was only information that was provided,” he said.

 Concurrent with the attack in Iran, Israel hit air defense sites in Syria. There are no conclusive reports of damage caused by any of the strikes. The scope of the attack indicates that Iranian nuclear facilities were not the target.

Neither side is making a big deal of the attack.

Iranian and Israeli media are downplaying or ignoring the event.

Iranian state television repeatedly played down the episode in its broadcasts, saying three small flying objects had been downed by air-defense systems and suggesting they had been launched from within the country. Iran’s army chief, Abdolrahim Mousavi, told state-run media the explosions heard in Isfahan were a result of the downing of a suspicious object that caused no damage. 

...

In Israel, the military said late Thursday night that there were no changes to the home-front command instructions that tell the public when to seek shelter, indicating Israeli officials weren’t expecting a major Iranian retaliation.

Is this the end? Or is it the end of the beginning?

Israel has been under extreme pressure from the Biden White House to ignore the massive Iranian assault of Sunday. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi warned Israel that any attack on its territory would result in a "severe response." 

Iran now has the ball in its court. It can accept this strike and move on, or it can retaliate. Last night's attack sent a clear message to the Iranian leadership. Israel was able to hit a highly defended military target in a highly defended area of Iran with impunity. The strikes in Syria have opened up an aerial highway for Israeli strike fighters should Israel decide on a larger attack. On the other hand, Israel did strike Iranian territory in defiance of a threat by Mr. Raisi, so there is some egg on the face there.

The smart move by Iran would be to take the L and move on. But making smart moves is not something the terrorist government of Iran is noted for doing.