At the same time the Colorado Republican Party files a petition to the United States Supreme Court to overturn a disqualification ruling issued by the Colorado Supreme Court {link}, a challenge that will result in President Trump appearing on the Colorado ballot {link}, the Democrat Maine Secretary of State has ruled by fiat that Trump should be disqualified.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued a public statement [SEE HERE] declaring that under her independent determination, President Trump should be disqualified.

[SOURCE pdf]

(Via Politico) – Maine on Thursday became the second state to declare former President Donald Trump ineligible to serve as president because of his involvement in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows made the decision, booting Trump off the state’s ballot under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that argues Trump cannot serve again because he supported or “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.”

(more…)

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow the legal arguments with presidential immunity to follow the traditional path through the appeals court [pdf court filing].  Special Prosecutor Jack Smith wants to sidestep the appeals court and go directly to the Supreme Court for resolution.

As noted by Politico, President Trump’s lawyers “repeatedly warning the justices to avoid “haste,” Trump’s lawyers skewered Smith for taking extraordinary steps to preserve the March 4, 2024, trial date without detailing why taking the case to a jury just over two months from now is so critical.”  In essence, Jack Smith is trying to force a fast trial on schedule to gain maximum interference with the GOP primary election, while Trump’s lawyers are calling him out for it.

Jack Smith filed a response to the Trump filing, again reasserting, “the public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves — for the first time in our nation’s history — criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office. And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election,” wrote Mr. Smith. “The nation has a compelling interest in a decision.”

Smith is worried the appeals court arguments and final decision will extend beyond the 2024 term of the Supreme Court, setting up a lengthy continuation of the DC case against Trump into October and November of 2024.   Trump’s team is saying the issues before the court are unprecedented and careful deliberation is needed.

(more…)

After years of assembling datapoints around the potential for the Supreme Court to be compromised, it was the discovery of Mary McCord’s husband Sheldon Snook deep in the office of Chief Justice John Roberts that finally sealed the deal for me personally.  Yes, the Supreme Court is compromised.

Quick Context. Mary McCord was the architect of all Trump targeting efforts. The FISA on Carter Page, the weaponization of the DOJ-NSD, the installation of Michael Atkinson as Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), the companion to Sally Yates in the Flynn targeting, lead staff for the Schiff/Nadler impeachment effort, later appointment by FISA Presiding Judge Boasberg to be amicus to the FISC, in combination with Chief Justice John Roberts holding authority over the FISC, and the discovery that Sheldon Snook, McCord’s husband works in Robert’s office as “special assistant to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s counselor. The counselor’s office advises the chief justice not only on the management and budget of the Supreme Court but also on his interactions with the executive and legislative branches, along with numerous other public roles in which Roberts serves.” (link)

Mary McCord is the fulcrum point for all of the above issues.  She connects all of the targeting operations.  Mary McCord is the center of it, and John Robert’s office is compromised by the appointment of her husband Sheldon Snook.  So, this story below does not surprise me.

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith jumped over the appeals court and asked the Supreme Court to decide on President Trump’s position of presidential immunity for his requests to secure the integrity of the 2020 election while in office.   In the fastest turn around time in history, the Supreme Court [Robert’s office] said yes, they will hear the arguments.

[Source Link]

(more…)

Repost Due to Current Media Cycle News

The Ring of Truth – “I am too well accustomed to the taking of evidence not to detect the ring of truth.” 1908, Edith Wharton

Much has been made of the events of January 6, 2021, and with the latest broadcast of CCTV video from inside the Capitol Hill complex, more questions have been raised.

Within the questions: the FBI and government apparatus had advanced knowledge of the scale of the J6 mall assembly yet doing nothing?  Why were the Capitol Hill police never informed of the FBI concerns?  Why didn’t House Speaker Nancy Pelosi secure the Capitol Hill complex, and why did she deny the request by President Trump to call up the national guard for security support?  Why did the FBI have agent provocateurs in the crowd, seemingly stimulating rage within a peaceful crowd to enter the Capitol building?  There have always been these nagging questions around ‘why’?

Long time CTH reader “Regitiger” has spent a great deal of time reviewing the entire process, looking at the granular timeline and then overlaying the bigger picture of the constitutional and parliamentary process itself.  What follows below is a brilliant analysis of the federal government motive to create a J6 crisis that permitted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to trigger an emergency session and avoid the 2020 election certification challenges.

Those congressional floor challenges, known and anticipated well in advance of the morning of January 6, 2021, would have formed a legal and constitutional basis for ‘standing’ in judicial challenges that would have eventually reached the Supreme Court.  The certification during “emergency session” eliminated the problem for Washington DC.

Regitiger explains below, only edited by me for clarity and context:

I think most, not all, but a large number of people, are totally missing what happened; and why this happened on Jan 6th.  I am going to try my best to outline the events that day, blast past the commonly held assumptions and get right down to the core corruption.

I will present this as a series of questions and answers.

(more…)

After a legal debate about standing in the case of Biden v Nebraska, the Supreme Court took up the issue of whether the President could unilaterally forgive student debt without an act of Congress.  In a 6-3 ruling {pdf here}, the court determined the executive authority of the Dept of Education did not permit such action.

Joe Biden campaigned in 2020 on a promise to eliminate student debt unilaterally, without congressional approval.  The court opinion released today affirms that Congress must be involved in their role as decision-makers of federal spending.  Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

[SCOTUS BLOG] – […] When the Biden administration announced the program in August 2022, student-loan repayments had already been on hold for over two years. Betsy DeVos, who served as the secretary of education during the Trump administration, suspended both repayments and the accrual of interest on federal student loans at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. She relied on the HEROES Act, a law passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that gives the secretary of education the power to respond to a national emergency by “waiv[ing] or modify[ing] any statutory or regulatory provision” governing the student-loan programs so that borrowers are not worse off financially because of the emergency.

(more…)

In a landmark court ruling released today, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the use of affirmative action in college admissions. {237-page ruling here}

By a vote of 6-3 (UNC) and 6-2 (Harvard) the court ruled the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause barring racial discrimination by government entities.

Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion of the majority said that for too long universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a woman of notoriously activist disposition defined by her self-image and race, sat out the Harvard case because she had been a member of an advisory governing board who constructed the rules the Supreme Court now determined were unlawful.

Amy Howe – […] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.”

(more…)

If you ever wanted to know how influential billionaire donors and the professional grift is amid the pro-life movement, this is a case study in the insanity of it.

President Donald John Trump was the most pro-life President in U.S. history.  President Trump outlined the platform policy of returning the issue of abortion to the states, and constructed all political endeavors to deliver on that pledge.  President Trump was the first president to speak at the March for Life events in Washington DC and hold pro-life supporting events at the White House.

Additionally, President Trump appointed three conservative pro-life judges to the Supreme Court, with the intention of overturning the Roe -v- Wade decision and returning the issue of abortion to the states.  This was and is the conservative position, and the goal of the pro-life movement as it was articulated.   In 2022, in the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of overturning Roe -v- Wade and the abortion issue was successfully return to the states as promised.

Since entering politics, the position of candidate Trump and then President Trump has never changed.  It is the same federalist position he holds today as outlined by the Washington Post:

[…] “President Donald J. Trump believes that the Supreme Court, led by the three Justices which he supported, got it right when they ruled this is an issue that should be decided at the State level,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. “Republicans have been trying to get this done for 50 years, but were unable to do so. President Trump, who is considered the most pro-life President in history, got it done. He will continue these policies when reelected to the White House. Like President Reagan before him, President Trump supports exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.” (more)

However, Lila Rose, President and Founder of the Live Action network, is now deriding President Trump because he does not support reinstituting federal control over the issue of abortion and campaigning on a non-federalist platform of a nationwide abortion ban.

(more…)

Yeah sure.  The Supreme Court of the United States asserts today that after a nine-month investigation [SEE HERE] they just cannot find the person who leaked the draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 

The draft opinion on the abortion issue was leaked to Politico from inside the court in May 2022 in what the court calls “one of the worst breaches of trust in its history.”   However, despite their efforts to get to the bottom of the leak and find the leaker, they cannot find out who it was.

The court then delivers a two-page memo explaining the situation, and a 23-page report from former Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

(more…)

The Democrat effort to obtain President Trump’s tax records has been an ongoing battle for several years [background here].  The democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee have been using Lawfare in order to present a false legislative justification for them, in an ongoing effort to find something -anything- to use against President Trump.

The Supreme Court already decided on case in President Trump’s favor [Trump v Mazars] in a separation of powers issue; however, the witch hunt continued.  In a separate case today, and with Chief Judge Roberts trying to extricate the judicial branch from the ongoing battle, Judge Roberts granted a stay until after the 2022 election.

Essentially, the Chief Judge appears to see the partisan nature of the demand, and in an effort to keep the Supreme Court out of the battle, he has put the outcome of the 2022 midterm election as the fulcrum for this next round of battle between President Trump and the Democrats in the House.  If the Republicans win the majority, the issue should seemingly disappear.

The motive behind the decision seems clear. From the position of Roberts, it would appear this approach is the better distancing procedure.

WASHINGTON DC – Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily blocked a House committee from obtaining several years of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns.

(more…)

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the U.S. Dept of Justice, National Security Division, and blocked the lower court order instructing the Special Master to review the DOJ claimed, “classified documents.” [pdf Ruling Here]

Essentially the order of the appellate court is based on the DOJ calling the material “classified” and “vital to national security”, and the court’s determination they have no authority to question the decision of the executive branch when it comes to matters of national security.

The court (judicial branch) openly states they defer to the DOJ (executive branch) as to any/all claims of harm to national security that may be caused by a review of documents the DOJ-NSD determine, on their own authority, to be identified as classified (sensitive, secret or top-secret).

Therefore, if the DOJ states sharing the “classified documents” with a special master may harm national security, the court must accept that position without challenge.

(more…)