Democrat Lawyer Admits At Supreme Court That Only One Party Can Be Allowed To Rig Elections

BY: EDDIE SCARRY

FEBRUARY 08, 2024

There was never a purer demonstration of how traitorous Democrats are about “defending democracy,” or whatever corny phrase they like to use, than what just happened at the Supreme Court.

At the very end of oral arguments in the Colorado case determining whether the state had the right to remove former President Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot,Justice Samuel Alito askedthe state’s solicitor general, Shannon Stevenson,what’s going to happen if other states “retaliate” by, say, removing Joe Biden from theirs. Elected officials in at least six states have suggested it as a course of action.

It’s an obvious question that Stevenson either wasn’t prepared for or knew it would expose her state’s case as a tragic joke. “Your honor,I think we have to have faith in our systemthat people will follow their election processes appropriately, that they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th Amendment,” she said. “Courts will review those decisions, this court may review some of them.” (No one has faith in system at all)

What she said nextshould have resulted in her being laughed out of the room. “But,” she said,“I don’t think that this court should take those threats too seriouslyin its resolution of this case.”

Alito challenged Stevensonon whether she thought the suggestion of retaliation, coming from places like Florida, Arizona, and Georgia, all potentially swing states in the next election, was truly unfounded.

“Um, I thinkwe have processes—” she said, before being interrupted.

“We should proceed on the assumption that it’s not a serious threat?”said Alito.

Stevenson said there are “institutions in place” that should “handle” such matters.Asked to specify which institutions, she said, “Ourstates, their own electoral rules, the administrators who enforce those rules.” She also said voters would have to rely on “courts.” (Wow what a stupid answer, considering how many states are run by corrupt dems. There are no institutions except the SC)

In essence, to believe this entire case by Democrats is an effort to safeguard democracy,rather than rig an election, is to trust that Republicans would never dare try doing the same. If they did,it would ruin Democrats’ plot.Alternatively, if such threats were made good, we should expect enough opposition to render them neutral…

But there’s a long way to go before the election. Attitudes change, and they will rapidly if Colorado is successful and other Democrat states decide to follow the example of unilaterally determining Trump is ineligible to run for a second term, all because he rejected the accuracy of election results (as Democrats do on a routine basis).

The media’s fixation on the Colorado case has focused solely on the legal merits of the case, when the more urgent matter has always been not what happens if it’s ruled legal to keep Trump off a ballot, butwhat it means for future democratic elections if he is.

There’s a reasonuntil recentlyit was not only abnormal but unthinkable in America for one political party to use the justice system to exterminate its opponent.The reason is self-evident— mutually assured destruction. If they can do it to us, we can do it to them. It’s what they do in the Congo and every other war-torn state across the globe.

Alito intentionally invoked that perilous likelihood. Stevenson’s response — “I don’t think that this court should take those threats too seriously” —showed just how seriouslyDemocrats take “defending democracy.”

(I think the SC took this case to ridicule this dems.)

https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/08/democrat-lawyer-admits-at-supreme-court-that-only-one-party-can-be-allowed-to-rig-elections/

Colorado Lawyer Flails As Clarence Thomas Calmly Destroys His Trump Disqualification Argument

FLEETWOOD. FEB 08, 2024

By merely asking for examples, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas calmly destroyed respondents’ argument for disqualifying former President Donald Trump from Colorado’s 2024 presidential primary ballot.

The moment came on Thursday morning, during oral arguments on Trump’s appeal to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s Dec. 19 decision to keep him off the Centennial State’s 2024 primary ballot. Colorado’s highest court claimed in its ruling that the former president can be “disqualified” from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which stipulates that “[n]o person” who has previously sworn an oath as an officer of the United States and has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion shall” serve in any of an enumerated list of offices of the United States.

The president and vice president are not included in this list of positions.

During Thursday’s hearing, respondents’ attorney Jason Murray argued that Trump incited the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, and therefore, engaged in insurrection. He also claimed that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment uses broad language, and thus that states possess the authority to include the presidency — and by default, Trump — as one of the positions eligible for disqualification.

Contrary to respondents’ assertion,Trump has not been convicted of any crimes, let alone insurrection, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out.

When given the opportunity to probe Murray’s arguments,Thomas asked him to provide the high court with “contemporaneous examples” of states disqualifying national candidates(such as those running for president) from the ballot in the years following the 14th Amendment’s adoption. Murrayfailed to provide the high court’s most senior justice with a specific example, instead citing an 1868 instance involving Georgia’s then-governor, who refused to certify the results of a congressional election because the winning candidate was “disqualified” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Murray then attempted to argue that “it’s not surprising” there are few examples because the ballots were not the same back then as they are today. “Candidates were either write-in or they were party ballots, so the states didn’t run the ballots in the same way, and there wouldn’t have been a process for determining before an election whether a candidate was qualified,” Murray claimed. (does this answer, even make sense?

Thomas, however, did not appear convinced by the attorney’s arguments.

“It would seem that particularly after Reconstruction and after the Compromise of 1877 and during the period of Redeemers, that you would have that kind of conflict,” Thomas said. “There were a plethora of Confederates still around, there were any number of people who would continue to either run for state offices or national offices. So, that would suggest thatthere would at least be a few examples of national candidates being disqualified, if your reading is correct.”

Murray attempted to weasel out of the justice’s questioning by saying there were “national candidates who were disqualified by Congress refusing to seat them,” but was quickly cut off by Thomas, who noted “that’s not this case.”

“Other than the example I gave, no,”Murray admitted. “States certainly wouldn’t have the authority to remove a sitting federal officer.”

“So, what was the purpose of Section 3?” Thomas rebutted. “The concern was that the former Confederate states would continue being bad actors and the effort was to prevent them from doing this, and you’re saying that, ‘Well, this also authorizes states to disqualify candidates.’ So, what I’m asking you for, if you are right,what are the examples?”

Murray again avoided answering the question, instead arguing there are examples of states excluding candidates from state office. Thomas interjected, saying he “understand[s]” states control state affairs but that Colorado’s case before SCOTUS is about disqualifying “national candidates.”

“What I would like to know, is do you have any examples of this?”Thomas asked.

Unable to provide a definitive answer to Thomas’ question, Murray fell back on his talking point that “elections worked differently back then.”

(None of these people are competent or honest enough to plead in the SC.)

https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/08/colorado-lawyer-flails-as-clarence-thomas-calmly-destroys-his-trump-disqualification-argument/

Justice Jackson Shuts Down After Trump Lawyer Explains Why ‘Insurrection’ Mania Is A Stupid Talking Point

BY: JORDAN BOYD. FEBRUARY 08, 2024

Supreme Court JusticeKetanji Brown Jackson quickly abandoned her “insurrection” questioningon Thursday when former President Donald Trump’s lawyer Jonathan Mitchell pointed out that the term, although used widely by corporate media, Democrats, and Colorado’s lawyers, does not accurately describe the events of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

The exchange occurred during oral arguments for the presidential frontrunner’s challenge to the Colorado Supreme Court’s December 2023 ruling affirming Democrats’ decision to remove Trump from the Centennial State’s 2024 primary ballot.

After going back and forth with Mitchell several times about what constitutes eligibility for constitutional disqualification from holding office,Jackson pivoted to the definition of insurrection.

In a question about “the violent attempts of the petitioner’s supporters in this case to ‘halt the count’ on January 6 qualified as an insurrection as defined by Section 3,” Jackson asked Mitchell to clarify his position on whether or not Trump engaged in “insurrection” during the Capitol riot in 2021.

Jackson clearly sourced her framing from the corporate mediaand Democrats who, mere minutes into the 2021 Capitol riot, deemed the bedlam a criminal product of Trump.

They immediately lumped the patriotic, law-abiding citizens with concerns about the 2020 election’s legitimacy protesting in D.C. with the people who vandalized Capitol property. Big Tech weaponized this mischaracterization to justify its censorship of Trump’s social media calls for peace. President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice also adopted the sweeping insurrection accusations as its primary motivation to prosecute any and every one of its political enemies in or near the federal building that day.

“I read your opening brief to acceptthat those events counted as an insurrection but then your reply seemed to suggest that they were not,” Jackson said. (She just admitted she can’t read or cognize what she is reading)

“We never accepted or conceded in our opening briefthat this was an insurrection,” Mitchell retorted. “What we said in our opening brief was President Trump did not engage in any act that can plausibly be characterized as insurrection.”

Jackson, unsatisfied with Mitchell’s prompt rejection of her assertion, doubled down.

“So why would it not be?” Jackson pressed. “What is your argument that it’s not? Your reply brief says that it wasn’t because, I think you say, it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government.”

Mitchell conceded “an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence” is one of the defining factors of an insurrection but said Trump’s actions never met that standard.

“My point isthat a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?”Jackson asked.

“Wedidn’t concede that it’s an effort to overthrow the government either, Justice Jackson,” Mitchell replied. “None of these criteria were met.”

“This was a riot. It was not an insurrection,” Mitchell concluded. “The events were shameful criminal violence, all of those things, but did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in Section Three.”

Mitchell continued but wasinterrupted by Jackson who hurriedly ended her questioningtime.

(It must be so embarrassing for the other august justices to have KBJ on the court)

https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/08/justice-jackson-shuts-down-after-trump-lawyer-explains-why-insurrection-mania-is-a-stupid-talking-point/

Richard Grenell On Trump’s Biggest Challenges Ahead

Federalist D.C. Columnist Eddie Scarry interviewed Richard Grenell, former acting director of national intelligence and U.S. ambassador to Germany under the Trump administration, this week. Here’s what Grenell had to say:

On former colleague Nikki Haley: “She knows she’s got no chance. But she’s going to go try and serve on some boards and clean up … her Trump days, so she’s the anti-Trump and the establishment type, andshe’ll go on like a Netflix board or a Google boardso she sees that this is all abouther personal financial gainlater on with the crowd that has the money and power and social life. I wouldn’t doubt that she’ll move to New York City and join that crowd.”

Trump’s biggest challenge to winning in 2024: “I think the biggest challenge is whether or not the Democrats try to make a move toreplace Biden or manipulate the election somehow with an emergency or a crisis that’s manufactured. I think that’s the biggest threat: what are the Democrats going to do when they really understand that they’re losing?”

What a second successful Trump term looks like: “I would say if anyone seeking a job within the Trump administrationhas a Washington, D.C. address on their resume, you should throw it in the garbage== … move out agencies and make sure that this permanent bureaucracy in Washington doesn’t strangle anyone who becomes president in the future.”

https://thefederalist.com/videos/former-trump-admin-official-richard-grenell-on-trumps-biggest-challenges-ahead/

Raheem Kassam Gives His Analysis Of The Devastating Report On Joe Biden

How deep the rot is in the current government.

5:21

https://rumble.com/embed/v49o0wu/?pub=4

Jacqui Heinrich@JacquiHeinrich

Biden's lawyers wrote to Hur asking that he revise descriptions of the President's memory -notable given voter concerns about his mental capacity.

“Your treatment of President Biden stands in marked contrast to the lack of pejorative comments about other individuals. It is also in contrast to your own description of the President's responses on other subjects as "clear forceful testimony" that would be "compelling" to a jury. Id. at 233. Not only do you treat the President differently from other witnesses when discussing his limited recall of certain years-ago events, but you also do so on occasions in prejudicial and inflammatory terms.

“You refer to President Biden's memory on at least nine occasions a number that is itself gratuitous. But. even among those nine instances. your report varies. It is one thing to observe PresidentBiden's memory as being "significantly limited" on certain subjects. Id. at 5.

It is quite another to use the more sweeping and highly prejudicial languageemployed later in the report. This language isnot supported by the facts. nor is it appropriately used by a federal prosecutor in this context. We request that yourevisit your descriptions of President Biden's memory and revisethem so that they are stated in a manner that is within the bounds of your expertise and remit.” (The facts are proven multiple times a day in video)

3:33 PM · Feb 8, 2024

448.9K. Views

https://x.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/1755691270645645446?s=20

Who would have thought that his memory problem was the worst part of the report?Are these people stupid to bring public attention and pressure on the “highly revered Special Council”?

>>20380958

It must be embarrassing to be Bidan’s attorneys. But they get paid a ton of money so they will lie as much as he does.

>>20380935

Can someone download the Tucker and Putin transcript?Its on there but you have to be a member to download it.

>>20380994

Thank you sir!

OMG Putin said to Tucker about the CIA,the organization that tried to recruit you to Tucker. (Note Tucker looked very serious with no comment, almost mad).

He said to Tucker “Thank God you were not accepted to the CIA”. Tucker had no response.

I think it is pretty obvious Tucker was not happy about this, why didn’t he say Thank God himself, that the CIA didn’t accept him. After all, Tucker says his father was actively involved with the CiA

That point of the interview revealed to me that Tucker may or may not be embarrassed about when Putin said this?And is he hiding something?

Or was Tucker not responding because Putin knows he was accepted, and he has been part of the Agency on the fringe.

Whatever Tucker’s response reveals, it was very perplexing.

There is s problem here at this point of the interview. Putin did this on purpose!