Popular Posts

A political infographic/campaign-style graphic with a blue-to-red gradient background. At the top it announces an election recap touting endorsement results, with a large "100%" figure. Four white state-shaped cutouts (South Carolina, Nevada, North Dakota, Maine) each display a win-loss record for candidates endorsed by Trump in that state. In the center is a circular photo of a serious/stern-faced Donald Trump wearing a dark suit and blue tie, overlaid with a green checkmark. At the bottom is a "TRUMP VANCE / MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" campaign logo with stars.

Text in image: JUNE 9TH ELECTION RECAP: 16 WINS - 0 LOSSES PRESIDENT TRUMP ENDORSEMENTS 100% 8-0 SOUTH CAROLINA 6-0 NEVADA 1-0 NORTH DAKOTA 1-0 MAINE TRUMP VANCE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

>> So you're a Democrat, but you're choosing to vote for Trump this election? >> Yes, without question, both as a Jew and also as a gay man, I'm an activist. I led the opposition to Anita Bryan and Jerry Falwell. I know where Biden is at. I'm not there to support men having babies and homos for Hamas and trans men taking over women's sports. Once you form your own league, go international, go Olympic, Disney will pay for it. Why do you have to beat up on the women's community? I don't understand what's going on anymore. The whole thing is out of control. And what does the White House do? They just keep on kissing everyone's behind. It goes with their policy, unacceptable, unacceptable. >> It is unacceptable. Did you support Biden last election? >> Nope, ripping us off. And when you rip us off, you're ripping off Christianity, you're ripping off Islam, you're ripping off everybody. What is your point, Biden? I can't even explain it anymore, I'm so angry. >> I'm so angry too, that's why we're out here doing this. One last thing I wanna say about though, is this is a gay man, Democrat, he's choosing to support Trump in 2024, that's right? >> That's it, and only that, I make bumper stickers that say Trump.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Every Purple Heart tells a story of courage, sacrifice, and purpose. It speaks of a price paid for the soldier beside you, the country behind you, and the generations of Americans yet to come. Going to the Army at 18, you know, left, ended up in Iraq where I lost my leg. My name is Gerald Enter. I have three Purple Hearts. I served with the 1st Infantry Division in Vietnam in between '67 and '68. I got my Purple Heart in March of '68. Wounded on the 25th of February, 1991 in the Albogonoa field, Operation Desert Storm. I have earned two Purple Hearts in my career. Was recipient of the Purple Heart on or about, actually December the 14th, 1970. It was not a good day for me or a lot of other folks that day. I'm the sister of Captain Lance Peterson, who was a Medal of Honor recipient for his actions in the Vietnam War. I was wounded 29 years ago in Saudi Arabia at the bombing of Cobar Towers. I was wounded on the 30th of May, 2004 in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia. Almost 2 million people have earned this award and over 430,000 gave their lives. And I so appreciate what the President is doing. Those who wear this medal ran into bullets, faced ferocious bombs, and shed their blood on the field of battle. We will never forget what they did. We will always use them as an example of bravery and courage and strength. Now signed the proclamation officially declaring this as National Purple Heart Day. Very special day. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

this week with a Supreme Court showdown. The justices are set to hear oral arguments on Thursday in a case that could upend the 2024 presidential race, as they consider whether Donald Trump can be removed from the primary ballot in Colorado. That state's high court ruled in December that the former president is ineligible to hold office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits an officer of the United States who took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office again. Let's bring in former Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey. Judge, welcome back to the show. Good to have you here. You've written, for us in fact, that the President of the United States is not covered by the disqualification clause of Section 3. Why not? Right. First of all, the presidency is not an office under the United States. It has its independent source of power. It's a mistake to say it's under the United States. But passing that question of whether he violated an oath that he took as an officer of the United States, he took an oath as president. That's prescribed in Section 2. Oaths of officers of the United States are in Section, or in Article 6. That he took an oath to support the Constitution. That's the violation. The oath that he took was to preserve, protect, and defend. Different wording. And understand, these words were not picked out of the air by the people who framed the 14th Amendment. They were in the prior Constitution. So they used words to mean the same thing that they meant in the Constitution as it existed before. So if you're a textualist judge or an originalist judge, you're looking at that language. You think it's pretty clear call. It's just not covered. Yeah. I mean, there's also, there are three clauses in the Constitution that refer to what the president does that show that he's not an officer of the United States. One thing he's obligated to do is to nominate and appoint all officers of the United States. He doesn't appoint himself. So therefore he's not an officer of the United States. Another clause says that he commissions officers of the, all officers of the United States. Doesn't say all other officers. It says all officers. He doesn't commission himself. I guess some of the supporters of the disqualification of President Trump say, look, of course the framers wanted the president covered. They assumed that he would be covered because they obviously didn't want Jefferson Davis. This was drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court to be able to run for president someday. Interesting. They weren't worried about Jefferson Davis, number one. Number two, the words president and vice president of the United States were in an initial draft of section three. They were taken out. And the reason they were taken out was that they didn't want to fight over that. What they were worried about was what in fact happened, not Jefferson Davis, but the vice president, who was sent to, to the Senate as a Senator and people were scandalized that the 11 Confederate States were going to reconstitute themselves as a Confederacy. So they barred people from serving as appointed officials and they barred specifically them serving as senators and members of the House because that was what was being done before the 14th amendment was passed. Okay. Now the court could decide that it decides this case on those grounds that you just decided, but there is this question lurking in the background of whether or not what happened on January 6th was an insurrection. What do you think? Uh, and does the court need to get, reach that question? Court doesn't need to reach that question. I don't think they will because it's fraught. People have been debating that with more, more light, more heat than light. But, um, the fact is nobody's been charged with insurrection, not even the people who participated, certainly not Donald Trump. And in fact, the government's theory of those cases is not that he engaged in an insurrection, but that they were acting on their own, um, and their other charges against all these other charges against the defendants who were tried. So, um, that theory won't wash. But, uh, so, and, and, and the court might be prudent to avoid this question of insurrection because it's so politically fraught. You will impassion people on either side. If you actually delve into this, particularly when there's no need for it. Um, but the trick will be if they're going to decide it on language and grounds of textualism, textual language, um, then they're going to have to convince people not only that they're correct, but also that they're right. And those are two different things. And that the second part may be a harder sell. It's got to be a good explanation. There's another issue, which is that assume, let's assume for the sake of argument that the court allowed colorado to strike the, uh, the, uh, president Trump for the ballot. Other states have said, no, we don't agree with that argument. He is going to be on the ballot and they've considered this question the same question. So if, if they did go along with colorado, the Supreme court, we'd have a patchwork quilt of election laws, a crazy quilt of election laws where a candidate would be qualified in some states, disqualified in other states on the, on the same ground. That is the question of the 14th amendment, which the Supreme court is supposed to be the final arbiter of. So that's another argument, even though it's not strictly a legal argument, is it? That's another argument for the court coming in here and, uh, and declaring colorado, uh, out of bounds with its decision. Though that, that should not be a consideration, but it's definitely a benefit. What do you think, uh, the Supreme court will do? Bottom line. Um, I think they'll reverse. The question is the ground on which they will reverse as a whole child's garden of grounds that, that they could use. Um, I just hope that whatever ground they use, they are unanimous because I think that would help validate whatever the decision is. Uh, if they go riding madly off in all directions, that kind of undermines the authority of what they do, even though it shouldn't. Yeah. But you're absolutely right about that. Let's hope. And I think chief justice Roberts would like to have it unanimous. Thank you, judge McKeeves. We appreciate you coming in.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A digital architectural rendering of a large neoclassical building with a tall white facade dominated by two rows of towering Corinthian columns supporting a decorated entablature and a balustrade along the roofline. Wide curved staircases sweep down from the columned portico to a green lawn in the foreground. Two small human figures (rendered as simplified 3D models) stand near the entrance doors at the top of the stairs, giving scale to the massive structure. A tree with green foliage stands to the left, and a plain gray boxy building (also a rendering placeholder) is visible to the right. The sky is blue with light clouds. The image has the look of an unfinished architectural visualization/render (e.g., from SketchUp or similar 3D software), not a photograph of an existing building.

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A political meme: a side-by-side of two formal portrait photos of men in suits on a black background, with bold white captions above and below. The left man has short dark hair and wears a dark suit, light blue shirt, blue striped tie and a small flag lapel pin, standing in front of an American flag and another flag. The right man has dark slicked-back hair and wears a navy suit, white shirt, dark patterned tie and a flag lapel pin, with a flag behind him. The caption asserts that one of the two is the most corrupt US president in history and that the other is Richard Nixon. It names only Nixon and doesn't say which man is which. The joke is that the unnamed man is being called as corrupt as Nixon or worse. I am not identifying either man from his face.

Text in image: ONE OF THESE MEN IS THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES THE OTHER IS RICHARD NIXON

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

>> We brought Israelis and Palestinians together at a political level. And as I affirmed a friend of mine,

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.