Democratic Governors

(Click here) 

It is refreshing to see the Democratic Party come together so strongly. It is noteworthy that Democratic Governors have the backing of their state constituencies. These Governors are more than popular political figures, they get the job done. I might add that most of them can handily beat Trump in a national race. That fact is especially true of Pennsylvania Govern Josh Shapiro.

I might add the reaction of the Governors to an aggressive press corp. is a bit alarming. None of these folks are shy when it comes to talking to the press, so an honest reaction by so many of alarm is concerning. I thought the White House Press Corp. were sophisticated and not looking for moments of tabloid journalism. Who is leading the press corp. these days?

I am no flag waver, but, I love this country and see well seasoned politicians, some leaders in the Democratic Party, more worried about the political volatility in the USA than ever before. I think it wise to step back from speculation and be calm at a time when there is danger to our democracy. It is wrong to feed frenzy at this time just to sell the media.

Recently Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated she is concerned for the country while quoting Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor in saying openly she is worried about our democracy. I think both these women are very important to our country and their benevolent world view of the USA.

I believe today is the USA’s 248th birthday. That is two years shy of an entire quarter of a millennium. That is impressive for a country with a strong democracy that is admired by most of the world, including communist countries that try to mimic its economic success and overall power. I also might add, the USA’s benevolence on the world stage is important to many peoples as an anchor to global stability. It is wrong to want to see that radically change as the extremists of the right wing political party in the USA wants to have happen. 

If Democratic Governors can come forward knowing the stakes to the outcome of the 2024 elections stating they have confidence in President Biden and his own self-reflection of needing to be at home with First Lady Jill more rather than be a workaholic than that should carry some brevity.

I remind the Biden family came forward in criticism of some of the President’s staff immediately after the unfortunate debate performance. Such a quick reaction was formulated over time in concern of the President’s work schedule. I know there is much President Biden wants to achieve, but, he can put some of the less demanding goals on the back burner.

I think the party is correct in their alarm over such a poor debate performance by President Biden. But, there are members of the party still worried about the top of the ticket. Those concerns should not be dismissed, but, taken seriously for the best outcome of the country. I have confidence in these magnificent leaders who have received their own problems from the radical right. I think the scare tactics need to stop and the leaders of the party including the President and Vice President dialogue with the people and press about reality and the importance of the best outcome for the country. GENUINE dialogue is paramount to a stable country who has confidence in their choices at the ballot box and NOT FEAR overriding those decisions.

Happy Fourth of July and many more to come.

I am not big on Wall Street, but, I found this interview interesting.

 He finds Ukraine an important war to fight among other things.

We must move forward with alternative energies.

The EPA is more needed than ever! 

Some of the people most likely to benefit from the change to alternative energies are those seeking "environmental justice" in some of our most polluted neighborhoods. This is not even a decision, it must go forward.

"It is also important to recognize when something is working."

July 3, 2024

By Leslie Sattler

Imagine getting paid $249 billion just for doing the right thing. (click here)

Well, that's what the United States earned over the last few years by increasing its use of renewable energy such as wind and solar power, according to the Guardian.

From 2019 to 2022, America seriously stepped up its renewable energy game. An illuminating study published in Cell Reports Sustainability found that wind and solar generation jumped by a whopping 55%, to the point where it provided about 14% of the country's total electricity needs last year.

That's like removing 71 million gas-guzzling cars from the road each year in terms of the climate-harming pollution that was prevented.

But wait, there's more: By burning way less coal and oil for electricity, we also dramatically improved the nation's air quality.

Key pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to asthma and other health issues, dropped by 1.1 million tons. And all those cleaner skies translated to an estimated $249 billion in public health benefits....

In order to solve the problems that comes with change it is necessary to GO THERE. The greening of the energy sector MUST receive infrastructure investment in order to solve the problems we face with climate.

July 3, 2024

By Alastair Marsh

Green innovators (click here) too advanced for venture capital but not advanced enough for infrastructure investors are falling through the cracks — and time is running out....

The Roberts' Court is not appropriate in its practice of crony politics.

The presidency of the USA is the Executive Branch because it heads up the country's legal enforcement. The legislative branch is elected to address the concerns of the people, they make the laws that the Executive Branch upholds. I sincerely am worried about the focus of some members of the Supreme Court that are seeking to dismantle the federal authority. 

July 2, 2024

By Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee

Over opposition from two conservative justices, (click here) the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a challenge that could’ve gutted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

An Ohio-based construction contractor backed by Republican-led states and anti-regulatory interests contended Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative powers to the executive branch when it gave such broad authority to the agency, which sets and enforces workplace standards....

That is what the US Congress does, it legislates. If it wanted to change the oversight of the AGENCIES of the USA Presidential Cabinet it could certainly do so. The Cabinet heads the agencies created by Congress. This example of OSHA is extremely concerning. The Supreme Court already gutted the powers of the EPA to write regulations to stem pollution and make American lives healthier and now they are simply moving on to the next victim.

THIS IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT in the USA. They are not allowed to destroy legislation demanded by the people to improve their lives. It is no different than Roe v. Wade, it was legal precedent for decades and a radical conservative court came in and destroyed a legal precedent that saved women's lives and gave them control over their reproductive outcomes.

This is an EXTREMELY political court and they are way out of line. Not just a little out of line, but, way out of line. The Supreme Court is not to empower a dictator either. That is exactly what they did in the case of an immunity plea by Trump. It is a lot of nonsense to believe the USA Supreme Court is appropriate in empowering dictatorial rule over the country.

...“The question whether the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s broad authority is consistent with our constitutional structure is undeniably important,” Thomas wrote.

He noted that other conservatives on the Supreme Court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh — have over the years expressed an interest in “reconsidering this Court’s approach” to Congress’s delegations of power to federal agencies....

Excuse me? Who do they think they are? The power of this government belongs to the people that elect legislators to act on their behalf. The Supreme Court is unelected and does not have the right to rewrite the USA Constitution.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices. It also established the lower federal court system.

The Supreme Court interprets the law AS WRITTTEN to determine if the FACTS of the case before apply. The best court to address the sincere definition of the Supreme Court was the Burger Court (click here) that was the first court to uphold the INDIVIDUAL rights of Americans as opposed to generalized social engagement. 

...Although the Supreme Court (click here) may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court's task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied....

One of the decisions of the Burger Court improved freedom of speech when it provided a clear understanding that prior restraint was not constitutional. 

...In the 1970s, the press was “subjected to a judicial battering that has been more serious and more fundamental, than the assaults that were mounted in more parlous days,” an attorney representing press interests asserted in a 1979 weekly magazine article.

Free to reply to such criticism when he retired from the Court in 1981, Associate Justice Potter Stewart said that the notion that “traditional protections are being ignored or disregarded or destroyed is a completely fallacious thought.”

Controversy over the Vietnam was at a peak when, on June 13, 1971, the New York Times began publishing installments of a secret, illegally obtained document concerning the United States’ conduct of the war. The government saw grave dangers to U.S. security in the publication of what became known as the Pentagon Papers, and sought injunctions to prevent both the Times and the Washington Post from further dissemination of the stolen information. Within two weeks the case reached the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on June 26 and announced its decision on June 30.

Once again, as it has through the years, the Court refused to countenance restraint prior to publication. In a brief decision, the Court observed that any system of prior restraint bears “a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Each Justice filed a separate opinion; there were three dissents. Among the majority, Justice William J. Brennan denounced prior restraint in nearly absolute terms, but he conceded that in wartime there might be a “single, extremely narrow” class of exceptions. The three dissenters emphasized the “almost irresponsibly feverish” speed with which the case was disposed of; according to Justice John M. Harlan, it should have been conducted under full ground rules.

The Pentagon Papers were published and were a journalistic sensation at home and abroad; but the war in Vietnam went on.

Do news reporters have a right to confidentiality of their sources under the First Amendment? They argue that unless they can protect the identity of people who give them information under promises of secrecy, the sources will dry up....

The Burger Court opened society to highways of freedom of the individual. It was right to do so as freedom is a very basic concept of a democracy. When civilized avenues of freedom are opened, the USA economy thrives on inclusiveness and the culture that it brings. Closing down freedoms is anti-Constitutional and detrimental to the USA economy. All one has to do is look to the oppression and neediness of the Red States to realize how true that is.

This is from the Truman Library (click here). It is obvious that the Executive Branch is directly responsible for carrying out the laws through regulation and enforcement. This court is detrimental to the well being of the people of the United States of America.

A PRESIDENT CAN

 . . .make treaties with the approval of the Senate.

veto bills and sign bills.

represent our nation in talks with foreign countries.

enforce the laws that Congress passes.

act as Commander-in-Chief during a war.

call out troops to protect our nation against an attack.

make suggestions about things that should be new laws.

lead his political party.

entertain foreign guests.

recognize foreign countries.

grant pardons.

nominate Cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices and other high officials.

appoint ambassadors.

talk directly to the people about problems.

represent the best interest of all the people

A PRESIDENT CANNOT

 . . .make laws.

declare war.

decide how federal money will be spent.

interpret laws.

choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval.

Typical radical Republican that doesn't know what he is talking about, but, say it anyway.

July 1, 2024
By Perry Stein

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (click here) tackled a question in his presidential immunity opinion Monday that Donald Trump’s attorneys didn’t bring before the nation’s highest court: Was special counsel Jack Smith legally appointed?

Thomas joined his fellow conservative justices on a blockbuster majority opinion that expanded the definition of presidential powers and narrowed the scope of Trump’s D.C. election interference trial.

He also wrote a concurring opinion that delved into the separate question of whether Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution when he appointed Smith in November 2022 to oversee the two federal prosecutions of Trump.

Thomas argued both that the special counsel’s office needs to be established by Congress and that Smith needed to be confirmed by the Senate. He said he tacked on his concurring opinion to the immunity ruling to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.”...

Clarence Thomas is trying to raise a political firestorm when there is no basis for it.

The Law.

28 U.S. Code § 515 - Authority for legal proceedings; (click here) commission, oath, and salary for special attorneys

(a) The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.

(b) Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath required by law. Foreign counsel employed in special cases are not required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney.

Thomas is especially afraid of John (Jack) Luman Smith (click here) because Jack Smith has spent a good part of his career investigating and prosecuting corruption. Jack Smith has served approximately 14 years in chasing down corruption in the Public Integrity Section of the US Department of Justice. He knows what he is doing and can run rings around Clarence for all his knowledge of corruption, it's investigation and prosecution.

ORDER NO. 5559-2022 (click here)

APPOINTMENT OF JOHN L. SMITH AS SPECIAL COUNSEL

By virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of certain matters, I hereby order as follows: 

(a) John L. Smith is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice....

The Republicans always like to complain how the Executive Branch is breaking the law because all such Special Counsels have to be confirmed by the USA Senate. To begin, that point is mute because Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would have no problem finding the votes for Jack Smith. The law clearly states the Attorney General is granted the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to the case of Donald John Trump.

If the US Senate was involved it would be contrary to the statute of law that currently exists. THE LAW states clearly the Attorney General needs to do his job and do it well. This complaint by Clarence is still yet another attempt to attack the Executive Branch. It is all political and an attempt to assist Trump in his campaign.

Trump was OUT OF OFFICE when the classified documents were STOLEN from the American people!

...After Jan. 20, 2021: (click here) Some boxes brought from the White House are stored on a stage in one of Mar-a-Lago’s gilded ballrooms. A photo in the indictment shows boxes stacked on a stage....

Thomas is always warning about danger in cases that are politically advantageous to the right wing politically. Ready? He is always backing up Ginny.

Thomas was not happy the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments against an assault weapons ban in Illinois.

...In a separate opinion, (click here) Justice Clarence Thomas appeared keen to uproot future bans, urging the court to take up another such case on the basis that some semiautomatic guns, such as the AR-15, are among the most popular weapons in the nation, thereby claiming that more guidance is needed to delineate which weapons are “dangerous” and “unusual.” He further called the Seventh Circuit’s decision to uphold the state ban, which stemmed from a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that ruled that military grade weapons such as M-16 rifles are not protected under the Second Amendment, as “nonsensical.”...

The danger as Clarence see it, is that the AR-15 is not dangerous and unusual because IT IS POPULAR and a great MARKETING tool. Jack Smith should be Special Council to investigate Clarence. 

But, that is really some of the most moronic logic I have ever heard. I mean, come on now. This is a Supreme Court associate justice stating the reason a lower court should have overturned a ban is because the semi-automatic weapon is popular. Clarence conveniently threw out the idea an AR-15 is dangerous. It's popularity makes is safe. That is definitely moron level thinking. Sorry, it just is.

Then it all it's wisdom the Supreme Court again attacked the Executive Branch for regulating bump stocks.

The U.S. Supreme Court (click here) has ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its authority in 2019 when it classified bump stocks as machine guns....

The ATF falls under the Executive Branch of the USA Government, specifically the Department of Justice.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) was established as a separate component within the Department of Justice pursuant to Title XI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, on January 17, 2003.

The ATF was legislated it's powers. So, regulating bump stocks that turn a semi-automatic weapon in an automatic weapons was definitely within it's LEGISLATED authority.

Ready? Here is the proof of the moronic Roberts' court.

...But prohibitions will remain intact in states like Illinois that have banned bump stocks through legislative action....

So, what the Roberts' court did was to say that the federal legislated authority is pre-empted by a state's legislative authority. The bump stock works the same in Illinois as it does in Texas. But, in Texas when the south rises again and Trump gives the executive order to kill all undocumented immigrants it will be easier and will require less law enforcement in case they are attacked by a mob of "illegals."

That is utter stupidity and has absolutely nothing to do with States' Rights.

Here is another one that Clarence wanted to do for Ginny.

July 2, 2024
By Katherine Fung

...On Tuesday, (click here) the Court decided to not hear the case of John Doe v. Snap, Inc. Two conservative justices on the bench, however, disagreed, saying they would have granted the petition, which would have allowed the Court to "address whether social-media platforms—some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world—can be held responsible for their own misconduct."...

...In the lawsuit against Snapchat's parent company, lawyers for an unnamed 15-year-old Texas teen allege that the boy's science teacher groomed him using the platform. The suit also claims that certain Snapchat features, including disappearing messages, enable abuse by predators while encouraging users to lie about their age and that Snapchat should be liable for its defective design.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the case in December, affirming a 2022 decision from a federal trial judge in Houston, who dismissed the case under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 protects internet publishers from liability for third-party speech created by users....

..."In the platforms' world, they are fully responsible for their websites when it results in constitutional protections, but the moment that responsibility could lead to liability, they can disclaim any obligations and enjoy greater protections from suit than nearly any other industry," he said. "The Court should consider if this state of affairs is what §230 demands."...

This is a case whereby the parents of the child are suing an internet company that allowed seduction of their child by a teacher. This is an attempt to treat internet companies as if they were as responsible as the tobacco companies in allowing this activity to occur. Now, I am confident the information on the platform was provided to legal authorities to charge and convict the pedophile. But, can the platform be held responsible for it's users abuse of policy that probably exists in that such activity is prohibited and can result in the loss of access to their platform.

So, there is poor, ole' Clarence trying to decide how best to pander to Ginny and her soccer moms, when he voted for absolute freedom of internet companies.

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (click here) is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on July 1, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024....

...The outcome: In a ruling for both Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded the judgements of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton. The Court held that neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Eleventh Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate large internet platforms.

Now, there is no getting around how Clarence uses "hot topics" to attempt to carry out apologetic politics for right wing support. Clarence can't have it both ways. He cannot on one hand be sympathetic to parents appalled and wanting to sue an internet company to obtain control of the issue, while stating how dangerous it is for the Supreme Court to have not taken his issue and turn around and vote for unmitigated freedom and authority to internet companies.

These are only two cases when Clarence takes the "political capital of a case" and turns it into political fodder for the public while ruling in completely opposite directions from his political sympathetic path. Clarence has a very bad ethics problem and there are a lot of reasons to doubt the expertise of the Roberts' court as it clearly leans into politics with their decisions and not real life.

This is nothing but pure harassment and typical harassment of the Biden/Harris team.

"Cringeworthy?" There is nothing cringeworthy about it. I think it is a really cute interaction between the two women and congratulations to both for standing up for democracy and the freedom of expression.

They can't go anywhere and have a good time with the public or in this case with a black woman entertainer without the political right wing jumping into action to defame Vice President Harris.

Just another Trump Curveball.

July 2, 2024

By Laura Jarrett, Adam Reiss and Alana Satlin

The Orange Man asleep.

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's New York criminal trial (click here) on Tuesday approved a delay of the former president's sentencing after his lawyers asked for more time to argue the Supreme Court's immunity decision's calls for a new trial....

Thank you, Judge Merchan and the prosecution team of District Attorney Bragg for allowing time for both sides of the charges to file appropriate papers.

...“The People of the State of New York (click here) allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct. As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws. As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law.”

According to court documents and statements made on the record in court, from August 2015 to December 2017, TRUMP orchestrated his “catch and kill” scheme through a series of payments that he then concealed through months of false business entries....

Everyone in the USA is presumed innocent until proven guilty. A bail bond system exists to provide incentive for those charged to stay in touch with the courts and show up for the proceedings of a trial. The more dangerous the crimes, the more likely the person being charged will have a higher bond to discourage any time outside of the jail to continue a criminal activity and/or endanger the public.

Donald John Trump went through Due Process and was found guilty of not just one crime, but, 34 crimes.

...Trump announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015. (click here) He accepted the Republican nomination in July of 2016. On November 8, 2016, Trump was elected President. He was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States on January 20, 2017....

Now, the Roberts' Court had decided an Former American President is exempt from wrongdoing and the courts should consider any former president "presumed" exempt until found to be not exempt. This new ruling by a corrupt court needs to be applied now to current statutes that exist in the states and find out how to sort through evidence to find if it applies or it doesn't apply and whether a convicted former president has to stand trial again or have the charges vacated.

It may be a matter of process, but, Judge Merchan has set the sentencing for September for the drama to play out and a clear decision made as to Trump's exemption from a trial and jury verdict of guilty 34 times. It isn't an easy task, but, I think District Attorney Bragg and Judge Merchan are up to it. Additionally, these people still needed continued support in the way of body guards and whatever protections were in place to protect them. Considering the new status of the findings of the jury, Judge Merchan and the prosecution team may want to return protections to the witnesses as they may be needed again.

Trump's exempt status only begins on January 20, 2017 and none of the charges are related to official duties of the office.

In support of President Joe Biden

I think there is a better than 50 percent chance President Biden’s debate performance has been misinterpreted by those that want him to be feeble and “losing it.”

In looking at the debate I see a president with a stuttering handicap and not someone with cognitive issues. Joe knew the topics and the facts, but, his verbal expression was a bit halting at times. I find it interesting that it is his family that is rallying around him and in criticism of his staff. They know Joe on a personal basis better than anyone else and I think they can speak to his stuttering disability better than anybody else.

In a video following the debate, immediately following the debate, his message and speech was mostly clear with some acknowledgment to his age. He was asking the American people to continue to contribute to his campaign and that of his fellow democrats. A man with a cognitive disorder would not be able to do that. The cognitive disorder doesn’t disappear just because he is alone in a room with a camera.

What I believe occurred was that Trump was talking fast and throwing one lie after another  to the audience. President Biden didn’t know where to start and when he was formulating his statements he was also realizing his stuttering disability was acting up as well. 

I think what resulted on a couple of occasions was a word soup of what his stuttering would allow while entire grammatically correct statements were lost in the pauses everyone believed was an age related cognitive decline. I don’t believe it was. Yes, President Biden had a poor debate performance, but, he is not cognitively deteriorated or deteriorating.

At this point I think the Democratic Party and supporters need to ask for professional interpretation rather than a rush to judgement.

A cognitive deterioration as being discussed does not turn on and off like a light switch. Either there are brain issues or there aren’t. This would be a physical deterioration of the brain, not just age related changes if any at all. Yes, there is some help with medication, but, the medication would result in a steady state of being, not emotional fits and starts. So, I think a lot of the discussion surrounding Biden in this debate, which he requested for  his own reasons, is inappropriate and short sighted.

Being completely honest, what I see in the debate is a president with a stuttering disability while cognitively wanting to address all the lies Trump was stating without remorse and frequently.

To prove how stupid the Robert’s Court actually is,…

…this is “The New Source Review.”

(Click here)

All anyone can do now is watch it rise.

This is decades of enforcement in order to stem pollution that effects citizens lives. This is the LEGISLATION that the EPA is supposed to respect and bring about the end of pollution that affects citizens lives. 

THIS WAS LEGISLATED by those elected by the people in the second branch of government. The Roberts Court is a politically, corrupt, plutocratic nightmare that practices “legislating from the bench.” The recent ruling by the six conservative morons dissolved this legislation and the decades practice of it in stere decisis/legal precedent. 

What does anyone think the EPA is going to do now? Sure, sure the new source review will continue, but, so what? The results of the New Source Review is supposed address the issue and rein in polluters. Now? With what? This is the LEGISLATION. There is nothing left for Congress to do, except, write another statute for the Robert’s court to destroy again? THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE LEGISLATION AS IT EXISTED! 

So, all those folks out there that want to

end pollution and PFAs; Good Luck!

If coups are now legal…

…we should throw out all the Republicans from office!

Campaigning by anyone is not an official act. Trumps speech on the Ellipse was a personal act of vengeance having lost the election.

A president of the United States of America cannot official order the end to anyone’s life. If that were possible Biden could now get rid of Trump as a candidate.

Presidential order #55555555555555 Assassinate Donald John Trump as he is a danger to the national security of the USA

There is no absolute immunity as president of this country. The Rule of Law still stands as does Due Process.

There will never be a gallows for innocent people.

Assassination of innocent people is something that works for Putin as he ordered the death of Alexei Navalny a political opponent. Such heinous treatment of people does not exist in democracies. 

The president of this country still needs to maintain good moral character and carry out the his/her responsibilities within the legal framework of the USA.

I don’t know what the Supreme Court is thinking but it seems obvious that they are not very smart people.

Trump’s prosecutions need to go forward for the jury to convict.

(Click here)

The Robert’s court chronically confuses politics with governance. The issue with Trump’s interference in official proceedings to install a new president is a personal issue NOT a presidential power.

The president ONLY has immunity from acts of governance such as a military strike, but, plotting a coup is not an official act of a president and that is what Trump has to argue in a court of law in front of a jury. 

The court hearings regarding his interference in free and fair elections is a crime. If Trump’s defense is that a coup is an official act of a president then he is guilty of more than election interference and instead admits to treason of the USA Constitution of the United States of America.

Trump is a hostile entity with the borders of the USA. A President is supposed to maintain domestic peace and tranquility. Treasoning the USA Constitution during am official proceedings of Congress to carry out a coup is a criminal act. There is no place in the law of this country that legalizes a coup against the people.

A president is sworn into office to honor and uphold the USA Constitution. Trump has violated his oath.

The state bar associations should review the legal standing of the justices willing to allow a coup of an elected president. When violating the public trust is found their licenses must be removed.