FINALLY!! SCOTUS done something right!!!

Unanimous Supreme Court: States Can't Kick Trump Off Ballot

https://www.newsmax.com/us/supreme-court-donald-trump-presidential/2024/03/04/id/1155814/

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday unanimously restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states, without action from Congress first, cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots.

Trump responded to the news quickly, posting just four words to his Truth Social account: "BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!"

The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold expressed disappointment in the court's decision as she acknowledged that "Donald Trump is an eligible candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary.”

Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

Colorado’s Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, had decided that the provision, Section 3, could be applied to Trump, who that court found incited the Capitol attack. No court before had applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate.

Some election observers have warned that a ruling requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could leave the door open to a renewed fight over trying to use the provision to disqualify Trump in the event he wins the election. In one scenario, a Democratic-controlled Congress could try to reject certifying Trump’s election on Jan. 6, 2025, under the clause.

The issue then could return to the court, possibly in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which heard arguments less than a month ago, on Feb. 8. The justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump's favor.

Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.

Judge In Trump’s Classified Docs Case ‘Unlikely’ To Hold Trial Before Election: Expert

https://conservativebrief.com/judge-docs-81568/

A former federal prosecutor and legal analyst said last week that it looked increasingly “unlikely” that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon would allow former President Donald Trump to be tried in his classified documents case before the November election.

Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, is currently facing four criminal indictments. Two of these indictments were initiated at the federal level by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and special counsel Jack Smith.

One federal case revolves around Trump’s purported mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida following his departure from the White House.

Prosecutors allege that he unlawfully retained documents containing sensitive national security information, stored them inadequately, and declined to cooperate when requested to return them.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges, claiming that he had a right to retain the materials and possessed broad authority to declassify documents during his presidency. He has also accused all of the investigations against him of being politically motivated efforts to harm his presidential campaign.

Mariotti told CNN on Sunday that Cannon is likely to continue ruling in Trump’s favor after his legal team has requested a trial start date sometime after the election, in 2025, citing his campaign schedule, Newsweek reported.

“There are so many criminal trials that are upcoming, and as far as Mar-a-Lago goes, Judge Aileen Cannon has really shown a willingness to push this trial and to give as much latitude to Trump’s team as possible,” he said. “It is just really hard for me to see her putting his feet to the fire, particularly given the fact that the classified documents at issue add an element of complexity and give her opportunities to delay further. I just think that realistically, it is unlikely that she is going to force them to go to trial before the election.”

By comparison, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., an Obama appointee who is presiding over charges brought by Smith against Trump related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, has routinely issued rulings favorable to the special counsel.

She has delayed that trial, however, while waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

In an interview Sunday with Newsweek, Dave Aronberg, the state attorney in Florida’s Palm Beach County, agreed with Mariotti.

“I agree with Renato. This trial was never going to happen before the election,” Aronberg said. “Judge Cannon is new to the bench and has never had a classified document case like this before, which has built-in delays because of federal law. In addition, Judge Cannon has been very accommodating to Trump’s requests for more time. I’ve always felt that this is the strongest case against Trump but the least likely to be tried before the election.”

Meanwhile, special counsel Robert Hur, who was appointed to investigate President Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents from when he was a senator and vice president — neither of which is covered under national security laws like a president — found that he violated the law but chose not to prosecute him because of his substantial memory loss and the belief that his defense team would use them successfully in any trial.

“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen,” Hur’s report said, but added that the evidence “does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” it added. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Hur did not seem to address whether it was assessed that Biden knew what he was doing when he unlawfully retained the documents and provided information in them to a biographer.

Hunter is getting called out now by his own associates.

Chinese Client: Hunter Biden Must Return $1M

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/hunter-biden-patrick-ho-return/2024/03/04/id/1155838/

A former business associate is demanding that Hunter Biden pay back $1 million this week for failing to provide legal services, the New York Post reported.

Chi Ping "Patrick" Ho, who worked for Chinese firm CEFC, sent a letter to Hunter Biden's attorneys last week threatening to sue the first son within seven days unless he returns the money.

In 2017, Hunter Biden had been hired to act as an attorney for Ho, who claims he did no legal work for him.

"Patrick says he paid him, and that Hunter never did anything for him and that according to the contract the money should be reimbursed," a source told Post columnist Miranda Devine.

According to the Post on Sunday, Ho sent a legal letter to Hunter Biden last week requesting that their attorney-client agreement be terminated immediately. The letter also threatened legal action unless Ho receives a detailed list of services provided by Hunter Biden and reimbursement for the unused funds.

The Hong Kong law firm Huen & Partners sent Ho's letter to Hunter Biden's attorney Abbe Lowell in Washington, D.C.

Ho, former Hong Kong Home Affairs secretary, was convicted in 2019 for paying bribes to the presidents of Chad and Uganda. He was sentenced to three years' jail before being deported to Hong Kong.

Ho says the only legal work Hunter Biden did for him was to call another attorney, Edward Kim, and show up late for a meeting with Ho and Kim the morning after Ho's arrest in November 2017.

A transcript of Hunter Biden's plea deal appearance in July before Delaware U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika shows that the first son, under oath, said he received the million dollar payment "for legal fees for Patrick Ho," through "my own law firm."

After Noreika asked Hunter Biden whether he had been doing legal work for Ho apart from the law firm, the first son began to answer affirmatively before lawyer Chris Clark stepped in.

"That wasn't through Boise Schiller, Your Honor, Mr. Biden was engaged as an attorney," Clark said.

"Right. So that's why I asked. You were doing work for him –" Noreika said.

"My own law firm, not as counsel," Hunter Biden replied.

"So you had your own law firm as well?" the judge asked.

"I think Owasco PT acted as a — acted as a law firm entity, yeah," Hunter Biden said.

IRS whistleblower Joe Ziegler last year testified to the House Ways and Means Committee that, "the $1 million payment was not for legal fees and was misrepresented in the failed plea agreement."