#050 | Democrat “Insurrection?” Democrats Consider Not Certifying Trump Win in 2024
All of the top stories 📰 of the week to keep you in the know
It’s FRIDAY, March 1!
This week’s stories:
Democrat “Insurrection?” Democrats Consider Not Certifying Trump Win in 2024
“I was Drunk or High”: Hunter Biden Testified Before Congress
New Text Messages Contradict the Relationship Timeline Between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade
Judge Denies Trump's Request to Defer $454 Million Fraud Penalty Payment During Appeal
Trump's Ballot Battle: Illinois Judge Barrs Trump from the Ballot
Texas Immigration Law Blocked by Federal Judge
A quick note: I hope you enjoy this article and find it helpful because I'm on a mission to bring critical, truth-focused content to everyone, which is why most of my work is free. But this is a one-woman operation, and quality journalism takes time and effort.
If you value this endeavor, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support will help keep the majority of these articles free and accessible.
Democrat “Insurrection?” Democrats Consider Not Certifying Trump Win in 2024
A cohort of Democratic representatives has hinted at not certifying Donald Trump if he were to win the 2024 presidential election in a recent Atlantic article. The notable figures are James Clyburn, Jamie Raskin, Adam Schiff, Zoe Lofgren, and Eric Swalwell, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment concerning the Capitol breach on January 6th. From the post-Civil War era, this amendment was designed to prevent those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. from holding office.
Clyburn and Raskin, in particular, have been vocal, with Clyburn labeling Trump an "insurrectionist"—despite the lack of formal charges to that effect—and Raskin forecasting political turmoil and even violence should Democrats attempt to block Trump post-election. Their stance revolves around the argument that Trump, accused but not convicted of incitement, fits the insurrectionist profile outlined by the 14th Amendment.
Several states have moved to remove Trump from the ballot on the basis of the 14th Amendment. The case in Colorado recently escalated to the Supreme Court, where justices have exhibited skepticism over allowing states to exclude candidates from ballots based on this argument. Yet, the Democratic narrative persists, framing Trump as ineligible for the presidency unless the Supreme Court explicitly rules him eligible. Some Democrats, like Swalwell, condition their certification of a Trump win on such a ruling.
The legal debate hinges on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its application to Trump, who, despite multiple indictments related to the 2020 election by the Biden administration's Department of Justice, has not been charged with insurrection. His acquittal by the Senate following impeachment for incitement further complicates the Democrats' position.
Given the GOP's control of the House, the likelihood of redefining "insurrectionist" to disqualify Trump seems slim. Yet, the scenario is not entirely implausible. The Democrats' strategy reflects a broader campaign to delegitimize Trump, marked by significant legal challenges and public denunciations. With the potential for Democrats to regain the House, the prospect of objecting to a Trump victory becomes more tangible, albeit contingent on a Senate majority—a high hurdle given the current political composition.
In case you missed it:
News of the Week
“I was Drunk or High”: Hunter Biden Testified Before Congress
The impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, led by House Republicans, deposed Hunter Biden behind closed doors. Hunter Biden's deposition has become a battleground of narratives as the inquiry unfolds, with both sides drawing vastly different conclusions.
The Republican Case: Allegations of Contradictions and Confessions
Republicans, led by Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY), assert that the deposition has strengthened their case against the Bidens, pointing to alleged contradictions and confessions that hint at corruption. A particularly notable revelation cited by Republicans involves Hunter Biden's claiming that he was "high or drunk" when he sent a message to a Chinese associate in 2017 saying he was “sitting here with my father” — shortly before the transfer of $5.1 million into Biden family-linked accounts.
The GOP's narrative is further bolstered by Hunter Biden's acknowledgment of referring to his father as "the big guy" in communications related to business deals. Republicans argue that this implicates Joe Biden in the financial arrangements.
The Democratic Defense: Discrediting the Investigation
Contrarily, Democrats and Hunter Biden himself have vehemently criticized the impeachment inquiry as a baseless and politically motivated attack. Hunter's statement that he was impaired when he made the 2017 claim of “sitting here with my father” is presented not as an admission of guilt but rather as evidence of the Republicans' reliance on unreliable and out-of-context communications to build their case. Democrats argue that the investigation has yet to produce any substantial evidence linking President Biden to his son's business dealings, dismissing the inquiry as a distraction from more pressing national issues.
In his own words, Hunter Biden has sought to clarify his past mistakes, attributing some of the questionable communications to his struggles with addiction. He has emphasized that these personal failings should not be conflated with his father's integrity and public service record. The Democratic narrative frames the impeachment inquiry as a desperate attempt by Republicans to tarnish the Biden family's reputation with innuendo and sensationalism, devoid of any factual foundation.
Towards a Public Hearing
House Republicans plan to conduct a public hearing as the subsequent step in their corruption-centered impeachment investigation.
Comer expressed his hope that a public hearing would resolve any inconsistencies between the statements made by various associates and the information Hunter provided. Furthermore, Comer intends to make the transcript of the deposition public in the coming few days, provided both parties reach a consensus.
New Text Messages Contradict the Relationship Timeline Between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade
In the unfolding drama surrounding Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a series of text messages has revealed inconsistencies in the timeline of their romantic relationship, casting clouds over the Georgia election fraud case involving former President Donald Trump. The texts, revealed in court and on Megyn Kelly’s podcast, paint a complex picture of the relationship's onset, contradicting the official narrative presented by Willis and Wade.
Ashleigh Merchant, representing Trump's co-defendant, showcased texts from Terrence Bradley, a former divorce lawyer and Wade's law partner, indicating that the relationship began before Wade was appointed to Willis's team in November 2021. Bradley's inability to recall specific details during his testimony, despite his earlier messages suggesting a clear timeline, has added a layer of intrigue and skepticism to the proceedings.
The heart of the controversy lies in the 413 text messages exchanged between Bradley and Merchant, which were aired publicly, raising questions about the integrity of Bradley's courtroom testimony. These messages depict a relationship that predates Wade's official joining of Willis's team and includes financial entanglements and shared trips, hinting at a conflict of interest.
Willis and Wade have admitted to their personal connection but maintained that their romance began only in 2022, a timeline these text messages contradict. Their relationship, characterized by shared vacations and financial exchanges, suggests a level of intimacy and mutual benefit that raises ethical questions, particularly concerning Wade's role in the high-profile Trump case and his compensation of $654,000 in 2022.
The revelations have prompted Trump's defense team to challenge Willis's position in the case, citing potential bias and misuse of state and federal funds. The defense's argument is bolstered by evidence of Wade's presence at Willis's condo prior to 2022 and eyewitness accounts of their affectionate behavior, further complicating the narrative.
As the hearing progresses, the focus is on whether Willis's involvement with Wade, her appointee in the Trump investigation, constitutes a conflict of interest severe enough to warrant her removal from the case.
Judge Denies Trump's Request to Defer $454 Million Fraud Penalty Payment During Appeal
A New York appellate judge has declined Trump's request to freeze the enforcement of a staggering $454 million civil fraud penalty while he attempts an appeal. This ruling puts Trump in a precarious financial position, with a deadline looming to either pay the hefty sum or secure a bond covering the entire amount.
The case, spearheaded by New York Attorney General Letitia James, accuses Trump of inflating his assets' value to secure favorable loan terms and insurance rates.
In a bid to pause the financial hemorrhage, Trump's legal team proposed a $100 million bond, a figure significantly lower than the penalty. This proposal was rejected by Judge Anil Singh, who softened the blow by modifying a previous ruling that barred Trump and his entities from borrowing from New York financial institutions. This slight relief does little to mitigate the broader implications of Singh's decision, signaling a tough road ahead for Trump as he navigates this financial and legal minefield.
The penalty, accruing interest daily, is testing Trump's financial reservoir with over half a billion dollars in court-debted obligations and legal liabilities piling up.
Trump's Ballot Battle: Illinois Judge Barrs Trump from the Ballot
An Illinois state judge has ruled that former President Donald Trump should be barred from appearing on the state's Republican presidential primary ballot. This ruling, which hinges on Trump's alleged role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the application of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and its anti-insurrection clause.
Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter ruled in favor of Illinois voters who argued that Trump's actions on and leading up to January 6 disqualified him from holding public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This section explicitly bars from office anyone who, having previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution, engages in insurrection or rebellion against it or gives aid or comfort to its enemies.
However, recognizing the gravity of her decision and its potential reach, Judge Porter stayed her ruling, anticipating an immediate appeal. This stay essentially pauses the effect of her decision, allowing Trump to remain on the ballot while the appeal process unfolds. The final word on this matter is likely to come from the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on a related case earlier this month. The national implications of this decision cannot be overstated, as it tests the boundaries of constitutional law and the power of state courts over federal electoral processes.
The Trump campaign has decried the ruling as unconstitutional, asserting it will quickly appeal. Statements from the campaign have criticized the decision as an overreach by an "activist Democrat judge" and a maneuver by "Soros-funded Democrat front groups" to interfere in the election. This language reflects the deep partisan divides and the contentious atmosphere surrounding the former president's candidacy and the broader political discourse.
Notably, Illinois is not alone in challenging Trump's eligibility. Colorado and Maine have also removed him from their ballots, and most recently Illinois, citing the same constitutional provision, though these decisions are on hold pending appeal.
Texas Immigration Law Blocked by Federal Judge
In a significant legal setback for the state of Texas, U.S. District Judge David A. Ezra has issued a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of Senate Bill 4, a new law aimed at making illegal immigration a state crime. The law, which was scheduled to take effect next week, would have empowered state authorities to arrest, jail, and potentially deport illegal immigrants.
Senate Bill 4 emerged from Texas' legislative chambers as a bold move to curb illegal entry into the state. Championed by Governor Gregg Abbott, the law sought to "stop the tidal wave of illegal entry into Texas" by allowing state-level intervention in immigration enforcement. This included granting state judges the authority to order deportations and imposing misdemeanor, escalating to felony, charges on migrants who did not comply with orders to leave the U.S.
Judge Ezra's decision states that states "may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government."
Opponents of Senate Bill 4 have likened it to Arizona's controversial 2010 "Show Me Your Papers" law, which the Supreme Court largely invalidated. They argue that Texas' law is an unconstitutional attempt by a state to regulate immigration, a responsibility squarely within the federal purview. The opposition includes thirty former U.S. immigration judges and a coalition of civil rights organizations, signaling broad resistance to the state's unilateral efforts to manage immigration issues.
Undeterred by the court's decision, Governor Abbott vows to continue Texas' fight to secure its borders, indicating a protracted legal and political struggle. The state's aggressive stance on immigration and willingness to challenge federal directives reflects a broader national debate over the scope of state versus federal authority in addressing one of America's most divisive and pressing policy challenges.
Honorable Mentions
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), 82, says he will step down in November from his role leading his party but serve out his term. On Thursday, John Cornyn (R-TX) was the first to declare his candidacy for the position. In his announcement, he laid out his plans as Senate GOP leader, “We will restore the important role of Senate committees and reestablish the regular appropriations process rather than lurch from one crisis to another,” Cornyn said. “And we will return power back to our members; there will be no more backroom deals or forced votes on bills without adequate time for review, debate, and amendment.” Cornyn concluded, “I am ready to get to work and look forward to continuing to engage with my colleagues.”
The Supreme Court is set to review the immunity case involving Donald Trump, centering on his potential criminal liability for attempts to reverse the 2020 election outcome. This historic case will decide whether special counsel Jack Smith can proceed with the prosecution of Trump leading up to the forthcoming 2024 election. A judicial decision affirming Trump's presidential immunity will result in the dismissal of Smith's case.
Congress has reached an agreement to prevent a shutdown. This arrangement will extend funding for six major bills encompassing the Departments of Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development until March 8. Amidst partisan disagreements over finances for Ukraine and the border, Congress has not yet managed to pass a comprehensive budget for 2024.