What Does an Insurrection Look Like?

posted by Peter Nichols at American Thinker 

As the 2024 election approaches, the Democrats are much concerned with what they call “insurrection.” They, of course, refer to the events at the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, a day that will live in political opportunism for the party now planning the reelection of Joe Biden. In addition, they use the term to refer to any public objection or legal challenge to the outcome of the 2020 election. Democrats objected in the courts or in the halls of Congress to every Republican presidential election victory of the 21^st century. But that, apparently, was not insurrection.

The events at the Capitol, so inimical to “our democracy,” greatly disturbed the Democrats. So alarmed were they and resolved to protect democracy from its assailants that they now seek to bar the lead insurrectionist, also by happenstance the presumptive Republican nominee for President, from the ballot. Donald Trump indeed stands indicted four times by Democrat prosecutors in Democrat venues as well as civilly sued for his wealth by a Democrat attorney general and a civil litigant, of late feted on MSNBC.

The indictments of Donald Trump follow hard upon a three-year campaign to imprison anyone present in the Capitol on January 6 or apparently in the immediate vicinity (other than undercover FBI operatives). Even those admitted by uniformed police officers and harming nothing and no one stand convicted and sentenced. One young man committed suicide.

There is also the prosecution and incarceration of Trump administration officials, such as Peter Navarro, incarcerated after his assertion of executive privilege before the infamous January 6 Committee, and lawyers who placed their careers and liberty in jeopardy by trying to represent President Trump (e.g., Rudolph Giuliani and Jenna Ellis). This has been a persecution under color of law not seen in this country since the Palmer Raids (the anticommunist campaign of Woodrow Wilson’s Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, just after the First World War). 

There was in 2020 an effort to deprive state legislatures of the power to determine the “manner” in which presidential elections are conducted, as provided in the Constitution’s Article II, sec. 1, clause 2. Democrats who cited the pandemic to justify such electoral anomalies during the 2020 election afterwards proposed legislation to make the changes permanent. They contemplate also, even if thus far without success, eliminating the Senate filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, and adding the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states, in effect, packing the Senate as well.

The same Democrat party, now holding the presidency, contrives to change the electorate by opening the border to millions of immigrants, without regard to health, skills, means of support, or gang and terrorist affiliation, setting the law at naught. The consequence of this scam, perpetrated with pious invocations of Emma Lazarus’s poem, is to visit danger and hardship upon the nation’s urban population immediately, and upon the wider population in due course.

There are then the occasional experiments with the freedoms of speech and religion, conducted by, inter alia, government meddling with social media platforms and official persecution of those opposed, as matters of faith, to homosexuality, transsexuality, and abortion.

Does the current Democrat Party not expressly champion the “fundamental transformation of America,” in Barack Obama’s words?

Let us then return to the topic of insurrection. How shall we define it? Surely an insurrection is the event announced in the Declaration of Independence: the extra-legal and, if necessary, forcible alteration of political authority. How striking that the litany of wrongs there imputed to the British king suggests that he was the one who committed the initial usurpation of constitutional norms, to which the American colonists reacted.

It was the king who, for instance, “refused his Assent Laws, the most wholesome and necessary to the public good,” who “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,” and who “combined with others to subject [the American colonists] to a jurisdiction foreign to [their] constitution, and unacknowledged by [their] laws; giving his Assent to their acts of pretended Legislation… [f]or taking away [their] Charters, abolishing [their] most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of [their] Governments.”

The British monarchy perpetrated the insurrection, by illicit use of its powers, as well as by armed force. In that accusation, which is in one sense or another repeated in the twenty-seven clauses chronicling the wrongs compelling separation, the Declaration tracks the argument of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 19, “On the Dissolution of Government.”

Locke departed from many predecessors in ascribing the dissolution of government not primarily to the people’s rebellious impulses, but to abuses by those in power. His treatment of this matter could be contrasted with, for example, that in Chapter 19 of Hobbes’s Leviathan (“Of those things that Weaken or tend to the Dissolution of a Commonwealth”). In the latter work dissolution is occasioned by inadequate power in the government and seditious or presumptuous impulses in the population.

According to Locke, dissolution of the government occurs when the legislature is altered, by the executive assuming or hindering its functions or interfering with the “ways of election” (emphasis supplied). It occurs also when “he who has the Supream Executive Power neglects and abandons that charge, so that the Laws already made can no longer be put in execution.” The executive or legislature dissolve the government when either of them “endeavor to invade the Property of the Subject and to make themselves, or any part of the community, Masters or Arbitrary Disposers of the Lives, Liberties, or Fortunes of the People.”

In the Declaration, Jefferson presents what is largely an iteration of Locke’s discourse on the ways in which wayward rulers in effect overthrow a system of government, adopted (as in the language quoted above) to the specific offenses of King George. Did the perception of such a design, at least, not motivate the events of January 6?

No declaration of independence or revolution is required today, as the constitutional mechanism for the preservation of liberty exists, having been bequeathed to us by the founding generation. The prospect of electoral victory in 2024 affords an immediate, if uncertain, ground of hope. Those culpable in the occurrence on January 6 (those who actually committed violent acts) would have done better to wait for lawful redress, even if they thought with reason that Donald Trump had been turned out of office in a highly questionable election. But for all their sins, and their innocence as to what would be visited upon them, they were not perpetrating an insurrection. Those who seek the fundamental transformation of America are.

X22, And we Know, and more- February 15

 

The Consequences of Jack Smith's Rush to Trial

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s rush to try Donald Trump violates Justice Department rules and presents tricky issues for the Supreme Court on the immunity issue.

posted by Jack Goldsmith at LAWFARE

Jack Smith is rushing to prosecute former President Donald Trump for the events of Jan. 6 so that the American people can have the benefit of his evidence, and the views of the jury, before they vote in November. This rush violates Justice Department rules. The Supreme Court now faces the question whether it too will be a party to this rush and, if not, how it will avoid it.  

The Rush To Trial

When Smith sought certiorari before judgment in the immunity case back in December 2023, he argued that early review by the Supreme Court was needed for the following reason: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.” The brief added that “if this case proceeds through the ordinary—and even a highly expedited—appellate process, it is unclear whether this Court would be able to hear and resolve the threshold immunity issues during its current Term.” That would mean, in turn, that the then-scheduled March 4 trial date would not be met—a date, Smith argued quoting the trial court judge, that was needed to “ensure [fulfillment of] the public’s interest in seeing this case resolved in a timely manner.”

What is the hurry? Benjamin Wittes provided a candid answer:

If you’re smelling an elephant in the room, your nose is not deceiving you. The government … cannot here articulate what is plainly animating the urgency of its brief: the November presidential election. Indeed, the brief does not mention the November election. It does not mention that Trump is a candidate. And thus does not mention that Trump could become president once again.

As a federal prosecutor, Jack Smith is not allowed to say the thing that is plainly—and rightly—on his mind: that it is a paramount government and public interest to bring this matter to trial before the public has to vote on whether to put the defendant back in power.

To say that, after all, would be to intermingle the non-political prosecutorial interest in prosecuting past conduct by a former president with the active urging of the Supreme Court to facilitate the incumbent administration’s efforts to bring its principal political opponent to trial in time [to] impact voter choice in a future election.

And so Smith cannot articulate the concept with which every word of his brief is pregnant: that this criminal process is an attempt to protect American democracy from Donald Trump in a prospective sense. Smith is allowed to state the democracy-protection mission of the Jan. 6 indictment—quite baldly, really—if he does so in a backward-looking manner. Indeed, the very first sentence of his statement of the case reads: “This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but [not] convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.” And he is allowed to urge that the court upend the normal appellate process to ensure speed. But in articulating why that speed is so essential, he has to revert to highly generalized bromides about the public’s interest in a speedy trial. He’s not allowed to speak the obvious truth: that punishing Trump’s past crimes is a means of protecting American democracy against his future crimes.

And Smith is not allowed to say something else he quite obviously means: that a speedy trial is essential because the public is entitled to make an informed decision about whether a major party nominee for president committed crimes against democracy before deciding whom to vote for.

I find Wittes’s reasoning about Smith’s thinking plausible. Others have also concluded that the November election is motivating Smith to move quickly. Former prosecutor Elie Honig says that Jack Smith in the Jan. 6 case “is possessed by his desire to try Donald Trump before the approaching November 5, 2024, crucible.” In addition to the evidence in the certiorari petition before judgment noted by Wittes, Honig cites Smith’s original request for a January 2024 trial date, five months after indictment. Honig says this was “an absurd request given that the defense team must review over 13 million pages of documentary evidence and thousands of hours of video footage provided by prosecutors,” and given that most federal conspiracy defendants get years to prepare for trial, and that the typical Jan. 6 defendant received much more time than Trump to prepare for trial.

Justice Department Rules

If this were any other defendant than Donald Trump, the rush to trial—which cannot possibly give the Trump legal team adequate time to prepare its defense—would be deemed wildly unfair. Prosecutors and judges typically give defendants significantly more temporal leeway in trials of lesser magnitude with less severe charges.

Smith’s rush to trial appears to violate Section 9-85.500 of the Justice Department’s Justice Manual, which contains rules and policies that purportedly bind prosecutors, and which the special counsel regulations oblige Smith to follow. Section 9-85.500 reads (with emphasis added):

Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See § 9-27.260. Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland expanded on these points in a strongly worded May 2022 Memorandum on Election Year Sensitivities.  

Smith’s timing decisions clearly have a “purpose of affecting” the presidential election, at least in the sense of wanting the American people to have the benefit of his evidence and the jury’s verdict before voting in November. Wittes defends this rationale:

I don’t think it is a grave threat to democracy to acknowledge candidly that in a case in which a former president stands accused of trying to overthrow the constitutional order by fraud and violence alike, one of the reasons a speedy trial is essential is so that voters can have the benefit of the trial outcome before voting on whether to restore to him the powers that would, among other things, let him obviate the case’s existence.

Whether or not Smith’s actions are a grave threat to democracy (more on that below), this rationale clearly violates the Justice Department rule. As Honig asks: “Don’t prosecutors defy [Section 9-85.500] if they’re concerned about what voters know about a candidate, and when and how that might influence their votes? God knows, prosecutors have almost unimaginable power as is, even when they stay in their lane. Who appointed Jack Smith ruler of what American voters must know before they head to the polls?” At a minimum, Smith’s actions clearly raise the “perception of an issue under” Section 9-85.500, which requires Smith to consult the Public Integrity Section. One wonders if he did so, and, if so, what the Public Integrity Section and top Justice Department officials said to allow him to proceed.  

Smith could try to elide the rule, which says only that “the” (emphasis added) purpose of the prosecutorial decision cannot be to affect an election. Perhaps Smith is trying to affect the election, but that is not his only or his main purpose. Maybe Smith also wants to ensure that Trump can be tried and convicted before he can become president and end the criminal case against him. “The problem with this rationale,” Honig notes, “is that it implicitly holds that Smith’s job is to stop Trump from becoming president again so Trump won’t gain the power to throw out the cases. But if Smith’s goal is to prevent his subject from winning an election, that’s straight-up, blood-and-guts political.” Moreover, this interpretation of the rule would allow any prosecutor to ignore the rule, since a prosecutor can always find a purpose to take an investigative step that will impact an election other than affecting an election.

In a sense, the rule is a formality, and ultimately irrelevant. What matters is that Smith’s timing decisions are influenced by the election and, ultimately, by politics and political outcomes. And that is wrong. Whether he technically complies with or violates the rule, “the reality [is] that the criminal law and the political system are in an iterative dialogue with one another here about how to shield our democracy from the menace of [Trump] as he faces trial for past abuses of the presidency even while seeking the office once again,” Wittes rightly says. 

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

Opinion polls show that Trump will be damaged, and that Joe Biden will benefit, if Biden’s Justice Department convicts Trump of a crime before the election. Maybe you think that preventing the existential threat of Trump’s return to the presidency justifies violating Justice Department rules and the normal rules of fairness to a defendant. If the reelection of Trump means the end of democracy, or the rule of law, perhaps violating a Justice Department rule is a small price to pay.

I am well aware of the dangers of a second Trump presidency—indeed, I wrote a book about it.

This piece obviously written by a devout NeverTrumper, continues HERE

With Friends Like the GOP Establishment, Ukraine Doesn’t Need Enemies

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

It's always nice to have the useless likes of dopey Thom Tillis, smarmy Mitt Romney, and lib-symp John Cornyn lecturing us about how we need to spend endless unaccountable money on Ukraine with no articulated strategic objective, as opposed to defending our own border, and how if we don't agree we must love Vladimir Putin and blah blah blah blah blah. These guys are totally hard-core opponents of the Russians, which is really butch. I and a lot of the people they are insulting actually served in the Cold War, but somehow we are expected to defer to these guys on Russia? They're taking a hard line against Vladimir Putin even as they take no line on the border, and they are surprised and offended that their party is rejecting them.

How clueless do you have to be to be surprised by that? They're clearly frustrated so they're not working to persuade. They're working to pummel us into submission. And it isn't going to work. After all, they hit like girls. At least some of them should know better. Before entering Republican politics, Mitt Romney was busy outsourcing American jobs and I have no idea or particular interest in what Thom Tillis was doing before he got elected. He was probably treading water in the sea of mediocrity, just like he's been doing as a senator. John Cornyn was a lawyer and a judge, so he should understand something about the art of persuasion. As a trial lawyer who just convinced 12 jurors to go my way a couple of weeks ago, let me offer some advice about how to get people to agree with you because apparently John has forgotten…

Stop insulting people and address the issues they are concerned about.

See, that's not so difficult. But apparently it is difficult for the establishment. None of these guys want to answer questions about why it is so vital to spend $60 billion on Ukraine, where the cash is going, or what objective it's going to fulfill. They want us just to nod and go along, but Republican voters are concerned about these things. They know Ukraine is corrupt – I know Ukraine is corrupt because I actually went there and trained Ukrainian soldiers. They also know that a lot of our elite seems to have close financial ties with Ukraine and they're concerned that this is just more corruption by our garbage ruling class. You might think that these Stalwarts of the Senate would take a moment to address the concerns of their voters, but no. No, they pose as tough guys taking on Putin and, instead of assuaging our concerns, they imply we are traitors for not obediently going along with them.

Well, let me be charitable here. That's not going to work, you complete morons.

Sometimes, I don't know whether the worst enemy of the Ukrainians is its enemies or its alleged friends. I don't know a better way to enhance the opposition to helping the Ukrainians than to take people’s legitimate concerns and treat them as treason. What makes it even more galling is that it is not treason to question support for Ukraine because we are not Ukrainians. We are Americans. Our first and primary objective must always be America's interests. If the Ukrainians' interests correspond with ours, great. That's nice. But if they don't, oh well.

And a lot of Americans wonder what interest we have in risking nuclear war. I've got to tell you that I would much prefer Vladimir Putin to take all of Ukraine over him dropping a hot rock on Los Angeles. San Francisco, another story. But you get my point. Americans are not treasonous for putting America first. Stop saying that they are. Stop implying that. It's insulting. It's stupid. It's counterproductive. I don't know why I have to tell you people this, but apparently I do.

And here's the thing – I'm not against Ukraine. I don't buy into the idea that Ukraine is an evil country. Putin is bad. Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine. I don't think it's crazy to help Ukraine with arms and ammunition, assuming we have a clear strategic objective and a likelihood of achieving it. I want the Russians to lose. But, you know, sometimes you want a pony, but you're probably not finding one under the Christmas tree. The fact is there are a lot more Russians than Ukrainians, and the Russians don't care how many Russians die winning this war. I think the war is lost. We can keep giving the Ukrainians arms to keep the stalemate meat grinder going, but what's the objective? If the objective is to destroy Russian equipment, how does that seem like a good idea? The Russians are just going to rebuild their forces with newer and more modern equipment. The war is just going to make the Russian army better because the bad generals are going to get fired and replaced, just like has happened in every other campaign Russia has experienced throughout history. The sanctions aren't making Russia poor. The sanctions seem to be enriching Russia and, not incidentally, driving it deeper into China's arms.

You know, the biggest foreign policy mistake America made in the last 30 years was not, remarkably, Iraq. It was the failure to bring Russia into the Western European fold. Russia was never going to be a close friend, but it didn't have to be an enemy. It didn't have to be in lockstep with Xi and the mullahs. But here we are. It didn't help that the elite found Russia to be a useful punching bag. The conservative elite was comfortable with Russia as an enemy and the liberal elite found it domestically useful to attack Russia as part of its attack on Donald Trump. Remember how Hillary Clinton, who started the Russiagate lie, was also the halfwit who humiliated our country with that stupid reset button? You don't have to make excuses for Russia to understand that Russians are historically paranoid and that expanding NATO around it was going to get a negative reaction. Yes, I know NATO was never going to invade Russia, but Russians don't believe that. Russians are crazy, but they think what they think, and you need to be smart enough to understand that you don't get to tell the enemy what it gets to think. What a disaster.

So, now you have the spectacle of Republicans outraged at their own base for not deferring. You have the ridiculous Thom Tillis explaining that if normal people knew what he knew, they would side with him. Well, dummy, that's not how this works. You don't just get our trust. You've got to earn it. If you have some facts or information you think would change our minds, maybe you should share it instead of just defaulting to calling us isolationist rubes or Putin party pals. You're not going to insult us into submission.

This goes for NATO, too. The entire American elite collectively wet itself when Donald Trump said that if NATO isn't going to be a serious organization where all its members participate fully in the defense of Europe, America under Trump isn't going to continue to carry their collective ruck. Good. Normal Americans don't understand why European security is so important that we have to devote American lives and treasure to it if the Europeans don't seem to think it is important enough to dedicate their lives and treasure to defending it. When I was in the Cold War in Germany – you know, the thing all the Russia tough guys missed – the Germans had dozens of heavy divisions ready, willing, and able to fight to defend the Fulda Gap. Today, the Krauts can barely cobble together a battalion. They are not a serious military because they don't have to be with Uncle Sucker picking up the tab. Well, enough of that. That's not going to sell. If you're making the argument that Donald Trump is bad because he expects Europeans to do their share of the job of defending Europe, you're not going to convince anyone of that outside of the swamp.

The majority of the Republican Party today is not composed of know-nothing isolationists. It's composed of know-far-too-much Jacksonians. They saw far too many of their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brought home in boxes because of the gross incompetence of our elite over the last three decades. The suspicion normal Republicans feel toward traditional Republican Party foreign policy is a direct result of the total failure of the people behind the Republicans' foreign policy. Stop being offended that Republican voters have noticed that you have failed, and if you want to earn their trust again, stop failing.

And here's another hint – you won't stop failing until the border is closed.

How Many Elections Must Republicans Lose To Learn Ballots Matter More Than Votes?

Despite Joe Biden’s unpopularity, Democrats are consistently finding ways to win at the ballot box.

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist

The majority of public opinion surveys conclusively indicate one thing: Most Americans disapprove of Joe Biden and his disastrous presidency.

Not only is Biden viewed unfavorably by most Americans, but a significant majority of the country believes the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction. Moreover, polls regularly show most Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the president’s handling of major issues, such as inflation and the ongoing invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Yet, despite Biden’s flailing presidency and unpopularity, Democrats are consistently finding ways to win at the ballot box.

Case in point: New York, where Democrats cut into Republicans’ already-slim House majority on Tuesday by successfully winning a special election to fill the seat of former GOP Rep. George Santos, who was expelled from the lower chamber over corruption-related matters in December. Within hours of polls closing, Democrat Tom Suozzi was projected to defeat Republican Mazi Melesa Pilip in the battle for the Empire State’s 3rd Congressional District.

While polls predicted a narrow Suozzi victory, they significantly underestimated Democrat support. With 93 percent of the vote tabulated, as of publication, Suozzi is estimated to have beaten Pilip by 7.8 points — more than double the 3.7-point lead Suozzi was projected to win by, according to the RCP polling average.

As if things couldn’t get any worse for the GOP, Democrats also won a special election in Pennsylvania that will allow the state party to maintain control of the commonwealth’s House of Representatives. While Biden defeated former President Trump in the district by 11 points in the 2020 election, preliminary results from Tuesday’s contest show Democrat Jim Prokopiak defeating Republican Candace Cabanas by a whopping 35.4 points.

These results raise the question: If Biden is deeply unpopular among the American electorate, how do Republicans keep losing what should be winnable elections?

‘You Get A Poll! You Get A Poll! 

Tuesday’s election to replace Santos isn’t the only race in which polls widely underestimated Democrat support. As The Blaze’s Daniel Horowitz previously observed, the majority of surveys predicting the outcome of the country’s biggest 2022 Senate and gubernatorial elections overhyped Republicans’ odds of victory.

In Michigan’s gubernatorial race between Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Republican Tudor Dixon, for example, the RCP polling average showed Whitmer with a 1-point advantage heading into Election Day. Whitmer ended up winning the race by 10 points. The RCP average similarly projected that Republican Mehmet Oz would defeat Democrat John Fetterman by 0.4 points in Pennsylvania’s highly contested Senate race. Fetterman ultimately won the seat by 5 points.

The only contested Senate and gubernatorial races in which Republicans outperformed their expected polling averages were those in Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Marco Rubio won their elections by 19.4 and 16.4 points, respectively.

Surely, another year of high inflation, open borders, and rampant crime under Biden would push voters towards the GOP, right?

Wrong.

ABC News published a FiveThirtyEight analysis in September showing that Democrats not only won the majority of special elections between January and September 2023, but that they overperformed their projected margins. Even in some races Republicans won, Democrats managed to surpass expectations.

These trends were also noticeable in November’s off-year elections, in which Democrats won Kentucky’s gubernatorial race and a Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat, took control of Virginia’s General Assembly, and passed a ballot amendment that enshrined baby-killing into the Ohio Constitution. Republicans performed so poorly that they were left to brag about GOP Gov. Tate Reeves winning reelection in dark-red Mississippi by just 3.2 points. (Trump won the state by 16.5 points in the 2020 election.)

Everything Sucks, So What Gives?

While a lack of any concrete vision for the future of the country may be partly to blame, another theory explaining Republicans’ election failures can be found in the changes to election procedures enacted in 2020.

In the name of Covid, many states altered their election laws in ways that expanded the use of unsupervised mail-in voting and insecure election practices such as the use of ballot drop boxes in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential contest. After seeing major success in that election, Democrats realized they don’t have to focus on Election Day turnout to win elections — they only need to bank enough mail-in ballots during early voting to bring home the bacon.

In the years since 2020, the Democrat election machine has methodically orchestrated a nationwide effort designed to capitalize on this strategy and exploit existing mail-in voting laws. First, tax-exempt nonprofits bankrolled by leftist billionaires skirt federal law by registering demographics likely to vote for Democrats. With these likely-Democrat voters on state voter rolls, left-wing activists jump into action, harvesting these low-effort votes and running what have become highly effective get-out-the-vote campaigns that accrue Democrats an advantage over Republicans ahead of Election Day.

RealClearPolitics published an in-depth analysis of this phenomenon at play in the 2022 midterms last year.

For this reason, using polls to predict election outcomes is a fool’s errand, as it’s become incredibly difficult for pollsters to estimate how much these efforts will affect any given race. The reality is that Republicans will continue to lose elections unless they change the laws where they hold power or figure out a way to compete with Democrats’ election machine. Until then, using polls and public opinion surveys to predict election outcomes will remain meaningless.

NYT Stunned After 11 of 13 Independents Choose Trump Over Biden

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Imagine you're a muckety-muck editor at the once-vaunted New York Times, and the following results of a spanking-new Times focus group show up on your computer screen.

Independent voters from around the country had scathing remarks to describe President Biden in a focus group published Tuesday, with most admitting they are leaning toward former President Trump in 2024 despite their own derisive assessments of him.

What would you think? That I could put in writing, I mean. 

After the initial horror gave way to semi-rational thinking, I suppose I, as a Times muckety-muck, would wonder "What the hell happened?" Like, how were the questions worded, or how the focus group voters were selected, because surely— surely these results can't be right.

So the Times spoke at length with 13 undecided, independent voters about the two leading candidates and the issues most important to them. The voters, ranging from 22-64 years old, were most concerned about the state of the economy, with the majority citing the rising costs of groceries and their other bills. Of the 13, 12 said they would base their vote on the issue, with 11 saying they were leaning toward Trump in November.

"Oh, the humanity!" must think muckety-mucks. 

It gets even worse. For the muckety-mucks, that is.

When asked what they thought about Biden, the voters were blunt as hell in their assessments of the besieged president. Here are several of their responses:

"He’s a little bit senile, and I do think if you can’t do the job, it’s time to step down."

"I think he’s unfit for the presidency. A president should be the commander in chief. And he does not appear to be a capable commander in chief."

"[He's a] puppet. That’s because I feel like he really tap-dances. I don’t know what he’s done. It just seems like he’s just throwing things out there to please almost anyone."

"[He's] disingenuous. Nothing that is said really connects with me. I don’t feel like I’m being told the truth. I don’t feel like I’m being told anything upfront. I was just so disappointed — with the ounce of hope I had left — when we just started pouring money into the Israel conflict."

Tough stuff for Joe, which is only going to get tougher as the groundswell continues to grow around the "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with the poor memory."

Here are several responses from the voters when asked how they felt about Trump:

"Donald Trump did a better job. Joe Biden, I mean, I feel like I don’t have a president."

"Sure, [he] was divisive, and sure, it really wasn’t the most productive, but [he] really highlighted problems and the divisiveness that was already hidden inside of our country."

"To me, it doesn’t affect anything. His life, he puts it right out there. I’m sick of hearing it, but it’s him. So if I’m going to vote for him, that’s part of what I accept."

The last comment was key, which I'll hit in "The Bottom Line." 

One voter expressed his opinion this way:

"Like no matter who gets voted into office, I think our options suck either way, and I don’t really see any progress."

When asked to describe their feelings about the upcoming election in one word, here were the responses:

"Lost"

"Disaster"

"Necessary"

"Stressed"

"Anxious"

"Are we allowed to curse, or no? Bullsh*t."

"Anxiety"

"Worried"

"Indifferent."

"Ugh"

"Abyss"

"Concerned"

"Disaster"

Pretty much sums it up, but here's the thing: In less than ten months, we must choose the 47th president of the United States — and it will be arguably the most important election choice in modern history, so let's not screw it up.

The Bottom Line

To be fair, several of the voters also had negative things to say about Trump that were largely centered on their perceptions of his personality, calling the former president "egotistical," a "narcissist" and "disastrous."

Then again, when I vote for president I'm not necessarily looking for a role model or even a man or woman with impeccable moral credentials. What I am looking for is the candidate that I believe will best deliver on the issues that are most important to me — from protecting the border and the security of this country to picking Supreme Court nominees who will adhere to the U.S. Constitution rather than try to legislate from the bench.

As the voter said, above:

"To me, it doesn’t affect anything. His life, he puts it right out there. I’m sick of hearing it, but it’s him. So if I’m going to vote for him, that’s part of what I accept."

Amen.

FBI Warns of Gang Members Teaming Up With Illegal Venezuelans In the U.S. Thanks to Biden's Open Border

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall 

FBI agents are warning of the dangerous possibility that violet illegal Venezuelan migrants are teaming up with MS-13 gang members thanks to President Joe Biden's open border. 

A crime wave is sweeping through the streets of New York City, and according to a report from the New York Post, residents are in grave danger of being victims as Biden's border crisis allows more dangerous illegals into the country. 

The NYPD last week announced a crackdown on a Venezuelan gang after linking it to more than 62 robberies in four of the city's five boroughs. That gang is now believed to be Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan organization with international ambitions. While there's no clear connection between the two transnational gangs, the FBI is monitoring for "emerging threats."

"The sharing of intelligence allows our law enforcement partners to identify whether these threats are affecting their communities and provides them the ability to be proactive in combating those threats," a spokesperson told Fox News Digital. "Violent transnational organizations which may pose threats to American communities are a top criminal priority for the FBI." — via Fox News Digital. 

The New York Post said that the gang Tren de Aragua is the reason behind New York's violent robberies and attacks, warning that they pose a significant threat to American communities. Through the past several years, many of the gang's members have escaped prison— one of which is Tren de Aragu's ring leader, Hector Guerrero. 

Law enforcement has warned that Guerrero may be currently living in the U.S. after illegally crossing the southern border.

NYPD officers arrested Franco Alexander Peraza Navas, an illegal alien from Venezuela, last week. He suggested that the violent gang made up of Venezuelan illegal migrants is operating across numerous states.

"In a million years, I never thought you'd catch me. I've been going to Miami every three weeks, and it's much bigger than me," Navas told the Post.

Vladimir Putin Tells the World Which US President He Would Prefer

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Russian President Vladimir Putin openly expressed his preference for President Joe Biden as a better choice for the White House than former President Donald Trump. During a recent interview, he indicated that it would be easier for Russia to deal with Washington with Biden in the Oval Office and downplayed concerns about the president’s age and mental acuity.

This candid revelation on Putin’s part seems to mark a significant departure from the Kremlin’s perceived favor toward Trump. However, there could be more to this than it seems.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday Joe Biden would be better for Russia as president than Donald Trump, ahead of a potential rematch between the two in this year’s U.S. election.

“[Biden] is a more experienced, predictable person. He is a politician of the old school. But we will work with any leader of the United States, who is trusted by the American people,” Putin said in an interview on broadcaster Rossiya 1 TV when asked to choose between the two.

Trump faced criticism during his presidency for his friendly relationship with Putin and recently stirred controversy by saying he’d “encourage” Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to NATO allies that don’t meet defense spending targets. The Russian leader has previously also dismissed evidence that his country meddled in the 2016 vote to elect Trump.

Putin used Wednesday’s interview to downplay speculation about Biden’s cognitive health, recalling when the two met in Switzerland in June 2021, less than a year before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“When I met with Biden in Switzerland — it was, indeed, a few years ago, three years — even then there were talks about him being incompetent. I saw nothing of the sort. Yes, he glanced at his notes. Honestly, I glanced at mine too,” Putin said. “There’s nothing to it.”

Given Trump’s recent comments suggesting that he would allow Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO-affiliated nations who were not paying their fair share, and his complimentary approach to Putin, it is interesting that the Russian leader would indicate a preference for Biden.

There could be two different strategic reasons why Putin would send this particular message to the world.

On the one hand, perhaps he believes that his words might motivate people to do the opposite of what he seems to want. With Putin being an adversary of the United States, he might be banking on the possibility that if he says he prefers Biden, it might push people to vote for Trump, the president he would rather deal with. It could be a form of reverse psychology intended to ensure that Trump becomes president again. Again, Trump’s softer rhetoric toward the Russian president might lead him to believe that Russia’s agenda is better served by having Trump in office.

However, perhaps Putin truly would rather have Biden in office than Trump. While he was in office, his rhetoric toward the Russian regime was quite different from his actions against the Kremlin. He refused to lift sanctions on the Kremlin that were put into place because of its 2014 invasion of Crimea. Trump even imposed more sanctions during his tenure in office. Moreover, the former president allowed the sale of weapons to Ukraine, a move that even Barack Obama refused to do.

Trump also approved missile strikes in Syria that targeted Russia’s allies. These strikes killed “a couple of hundred Russians,” according to former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

So far, Biden has not taken the level of action against the Kremlin that Trump did when he was in office. Indeed, some have speculated that if Trump were still in the White House, Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine. In light of this, it would make sense for Putin to prefer the candidate whom he believes would be the weakest on Russia.

Either way, it won’t be surprising to see Russia looming large over the 2024 election.

Putin Calls Tucker 'Dangerous Person' After Interview

Levon Satamian reporting for RedState

Tucker Carlson conducted a two-hour interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. As RedState reported, Carlson received criticism from the mainstream media, politicians like Adam Schiff, and Democrat-run social media accounts because he dared to interview Putin, just like other journalists have done in the past.

Putin told Russian News Agency TASS that Carlson is a "dangerous person." Putin said that Tucker did not ask questions the way the Russian President thought he would.

For those who have not seen the interview yet, it is available on Carlson's website, as well as X. 

Carlson did not interrupt Putin often, allowing him to answer the questions asked, as Russia's President spent about one hour giving a history lesson on Russia and Europe. 

The interview on X has received over 200 million impressions and the post has over one million likes. This is just another example of X becoming the new media. 

As noted earlier, following the interview, Putin called Carlson a "dangerous person." 

I think that your Carlson (when I say ‘your’, I mean that he is a member of the journalistic shop) is a dangerous person.

The Russian President continued, saying he was prepared for Tucker to ask questions in an aggressive manner. 

Putin "imagined he [Carlson] would behave in an aggressive manner and would ask so-called sharp questions." 

Not only was I prepared for that, I wanted that, since it would provide me with an opportunity to respond likewise sharply, which, I believe, would give a certain special character to our whole conversation. However, he opted for different tactics, he tried to interrupt me several times, but still, surprisingly for a Western journalist, he was patient, he listened to my long speeches, especially those related to history, and did not let me do what I would have been ready to do.

As RedState reported, during the interview with TASS, Putin revealed that he would prefer the U.S. to re-elect President Biden over former President Donald Trump. 

During the World Governments Summit, Carlson spoke about his interview with Putin and why he chose to interview the Russian President.

I wanted to interview Putin because he's the leader of a country that the U.S. Government is sort of at war with but not in a declared way.

At the summit, Tucker was asked if Putin was interested in a compromise.

Putin wants to get out of this war. He's not going to become more open to negotiation the longer this [war] goes on. One of the things we've learned in the course of the last two years is that Russia's industrial capacity is a lot more profound than we thought it was... I have heard personally U.S. Government officials say, 'well, we're just going to have to return Crimea to Ukraine.' ... that's not going to happen short of a nuclear war. That's insane, actually.

Here is Tucker's full segment at the World Governments Summit.