Fearless Prediction on Biden's Impending RESIGNATION! - Biden's Burden and Trump, The Man Who Would Be King

On February 3, 2024, on this Blog, a call was made for President Biden to undergo cognitive impairment tests to prove that he is capable of continuing as President, and therefore able to run again for that same office.

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/8182703650793673539/6048582028204971806

We don't need new tests of Biden's mental acuity as the cognitive impairment tests have now been run. These tests were effectively run via the recent debate between Trump and Biden. Biden failed those tests. He is so obviously impaired that he needs to immediately resign and let Vice President Kamala Harris run the country until the next presidential election and until the next president takes office. Biden needs to never run again to become the President of the United States. His career needs to end, right now.

Biden won't resign. The hubris is incredible. The Democrats allege that Trump will behave like a king once in office, especially now that the Supreme Court of the United States has said that a president cannot be charged with a crime stemming from official acts committed while he was in office. In light of this, what is Biden doing? Is he not behaving like the Office of the President of the United States is his own personal fiefdom? Who does this man think he is?

Biden may say that he needs to run as he is the only person who can defeat Trump. Prior to the debate, that was a valid point. After the debate, there are almost no political polls that suggests that this is true. See here...

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden

Prior to the debate, Trump led Biden in the polls by under one percentage point. (Note - at this point in the election cycle prior to the 2020 presidential election, Biden led Trump by a whopping 9%!) Since the debate, Trump's lead has grown to well above 3%, which is outside most normal margins of error in public opinion polls, which suggest that Biden cannot possibly beat Trump now. Trump also leads Biden in every battleground state where Biden must win in the majority of these states or he cannot continue in his present job. 

What is happening, and what these polls reflect is that the undecided voters and the independent voters are moving to Trump in the realization that Biden is not competent to continue as president. Once these minds have been changed, it is close to impossible to change them back. Biden may have already handed Trump the next election as a result of his inexplicable hubris. 

(Note - Trump has recently edged Biden in the public opinion polls but millions of Americans would obviously still prefer an addled and incompetent Biden to a lying and criminal Trump. Where would Nikki Haley be in the polls in this situation if she has beaten Trump in the Republican presidential nomination battle! Without Trump's baggage, it is suggested here that she could have at least a ten percentage point lead on Biden at this point!) 

So if Trump wins, will he and can he behave like a king as the Left and the Democrats have suggested?

Commentary on Trump v the United States...

The United States Supreme Court has declared, as noted above, that presidents are immune from prosecution stemming from official acts while in office, and they sent the issue of what this means - as in, what are and what are not "official acts" - to the lower courts where Trump faces a range of criminal prosecutions. See here...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-immunity-official-acts/ 

The Left and the Democrats are aghast at this ruling, claiming that Trump will be able to do things such as order the arrest of political opponents and impose a military-enforced curfew in the USA to quell popular opposition to his rule.

Really? 

The Supreme Court confirmed the obvious, which is that official acts of the president should not attract criminal indictment. That's it. Were they supposed to say the opposite, which is that official acts can result in criminal charges? If that were the case, then many US presidents would have been in serious trouble, as the USA has committed a range of crimes in pursuit of its interests throughout the centuries. 

For example, it is actually illegal in international law to drop missiles on the heads of people in countries against which the missile-dropping country is not at war. President Obama personally ordered the murder of some 3,797 people via drone strikes, of which the USA will admit at least 324 of the dead persons were civilians. (Note - these people were all civilians, but the majority who were killed were suspected terrorists. These people did not get a day on court - they got death from above.)

https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

Here is an excellent summary of how many people were killed by drone strikes under Obama in countries against which the United States was not officially at war, and in one country - Pakistan - that was actually an ally.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush/

President Obama also ordered the murder of at least one American citizen in these drone strikes. The President of the United States ordering the murder of a US citizen is not a legal act, even if that citizen had become a radicalize lunatic. Unless the lowers courts will to say that the President of the United States is allowed to murder American citizens as an official act - and they won't - then Obama is a murderer. (BTW - the then President Trump actually ordered an increase in drone strikes once he became President, and he relaxed the requirement to report the number of deaths from those strikes. Nonetheless, there is no record of him ordering the deaths of any Americans.)

The justices of the Supreme Court said that the president is immune from prosecution for official acts. They did not say that illegal acts somehow become legal as long as the president orders them into effect, which is how the Left and the Democrats are interpreting the ruling. They also did not say that anyone following an illegal order was immune from prosecution...only the President.

So no, the President cannot assume that ordering the shooting of a political opponent is now legal because he ordered it. Murder is still a crime, no matter how it comes about, and murdering a political opponent is presumably not an official act, although it will be up the lower courts to confirm this.

Then again, there is a chance that the lower courts won't do this and that they will allow for things such as murder and mass illegal incarceration as long as the president orders these things in his capacity as the president. This is the nightmare scenario that the Left and the Democrats thinks is actually possible. 

Thinking that the lower courts will not interpret "official acts" to include such things as murder is showing faith in the American system of justice and governance - something the Left and the Democrats are failing utterly to do on this issue. At this point, the lower courts have yet to rule on what are and what are not "official acts".  

We shall see. 

Fearless Prediction!  

This is July 12, 2024. 

Biden will resign from the presidential electoral race on Monday, July 15, 2024.

Trump Convicted! Trump Triumphant! - With Post Script!

Trump has been convicted on all 34 counts related to illicit financial records aimed at hiding payments to Stormy Daniels to obtain her silence regarding the dalliance that he had with her, this in order to protect Trump's 2016 electoral campaign.

Some thoughts...

1. He is Guilty...

There is no question that Trump is guilty. Trump most definitely arranged to pay $130,000 to a hooker to obtain her silence. He did this by fudging the books of his corporation, and he did this to have an affect on an electoral campaign. These are crimes. He is a criminal.

However...

2. This Was an Unjust Prosecution...

Trump was convicted of 34 counts related to improper financial records. These are normally misdemeanor offences, but became felonies because this was done in aid of other offences, the most important of which was "unlawfully influencing" the outcome of the 2016 election.

So please understand that the basic allegation here is not just that the business records were improper. It is also that the payments were made via those improper records to unlawfully influence the election. This can only mean that the payments to Daniels were the "unlawful" thing that influenced the election. In other words, in the opinion of the prosecutor - Alvin Bragg - paying a hooker to keep her mouth shut about an affair, so as to protect a male politician's election chances, constitutes "unlawfully influencing" an election. 

Given that this is such serious illicit activity that it can raise a misdemeanor to the level of a felony, will Mr. Bragg be investigating other male politicians to see if they have done precisely the same thing - perhaps interviewing Mr. Pecker from the National Enquirer to ask if he knows of other non-disclosure agreements? 

Of course not. This was a special prosecution that has never occurred before and never will occur again...it was all just for Mr. Trump.

The other male, sleaze-bag politicians in the USA who have also paid to avoid "bimbo eruptions" can rest easy. Just as Mr. Pecker knew that his most important role at the National Enquirer was to bury dirt so as to protect the powerful, Mr. Bragg no doubt knows the same thing. 

"Unlawfully" paying a hooker to protect your electoral chances will go down in history as the crime of one man...Donald Trump...and no one else.

There is no equality before the law if the book is only ever thrown at just one guy. 

3. It Doesn't Matter...

Trump's MAGA supporters will be even more motivated to support him with 34 convictions than without. He will sell this as a Democratic Party set-up, and they will buy all of it. This will not shake a single vote from Trump's base.

4. His Base will Grow...

America is a class society, with three classes: the Consumption Class, the Management/Professional Class, and the Ownership Class.

The Consumption Class is the largest. The sole purpose of people in this class is to consume goods and services in order to keep the economy afloat. This class contains most of the "Deplorables" that Hillary Clinton famously insulted in 2016. This is also the class that contains most of Trump's supporters.

These people are aggressively policed in America to ensure "social harmony". Many have an exceptionally conflictual and jaded view of their country. They love America, but literally hate anyone associated with its politics - party affiliation is irrelevant.

Trump's entire schtick is that he is not a normal politician and he is not part of the normal political mainstream in the USA. Nothing will make this clearer than his conviction on 34 counts for essentially paying a hooker $130,000 to stay silent.

Literally tens of millions of American voters will identify with him now that he has been convicted of many crimes. They will think that, like them, he was also whacked by The Man. 

It doesn't matter that Trump actually is The Man. He will now resonate with millions more people than ever before. Prediction...polling will show his support rising, not falling, after these convictions.

5. Conclusion...

Those who brought and who salute this prosecution do not understand that Trump is not the problem; he is a symptom of a problem. 

That problem is that tens of millions of American citizens do not think that they are part of the American Dream. They believe that they are not part of that country's economic success; its political mainstream; and most importantly, its emerging culture. They are ready to be politically mobilized by anyone who speaks their language of discontent - so far, Trump is the one who truly gets it.

Once Trump is gone, someone else will tap into this wellspring of discontent, and reap political rewards. 

P.S. 

Polls since the convictions have been very slightly in favour of Biden. Trump's lead, as per Real Clear Politics, has declined from 0.9% to 0.5%. However, in 2020 Biden had a 7.8% lead at this point in the election cycle in June 2020. If these numbers hold, Biden cannot win the 2024 presidential election.

Fani Willis....ME TOO, or NOT ME? (See Update...)

The Fulton County District Attorney who is leading the charge against Donald Trump and others related to their attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia has been caught "banging" her subordinate. These are the Georgia election interference cases.

She and her subordinate have confirmed, under oath, that the relationship took place.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/in-fiery-testimony-willis-defends-herself-against-accusations-of-misconduct/DJQ2MTD7BZAJVDND2WBS65XXV4/

This matter has been brought before the courts in an attempt by defence counsel for various charged individuals to have her and her subordinate disqualified from the cases, which would at least lead to considerable delay.

The issues before the courts related to this matter include whether Fani Willis has benefitted financially from hiring this man - Nathan Wade - and the question of when, exactly, did they start doing it...before or after she hired him?

What is not being raised is the almost unbelievable level of impropriety that would see a powerful person in a senior position carrying on with their subordinate.

When men do this and are caught, they are very often disciplined and even shown the door as the most tangible evidence of the success of the ME TOO movement. This occurs even if the affair was acknowledged as being consensual.

Fani Willis is apparently getting a pass on "making it" with her staff. As far as the writer knows, she has not apologized for the affair, and she has certainly not resigned.

Why is this?  

Is it because when is comes to illicit workplace liaisons, for powerful men it's now a matter of ME TOO, but for powerful women it seems to be a matter of NOT ME?

The judge hearing this matter - Judge Scott McAfee - is almost certain to disqualify both of these people from the various election-related cases, if only because even the appearance of impropriety demands such a result. Let's hope that when he does disqualify them, he will focus on the only issue that really matters - which is the completely inappropriate liaisons between Willis and Wade - and lay bare the almost unbelievable level of hypocrisy here.

Note - how is this issue not being raised far and wide in the press? What does the silence of most of the media about this impropriety say about their pretended devotion to "equality"?

For context, here is how this is handled in Canada...

https://www.wealthprofessional.ca/news/industry-news/rbc-fires-cfo-over-conduct-code-violation/385260#:~:text=Royal%20Bank%20of%20Canada%20(RBC,as%20reported%20by%20BNN%20Bloomberg.

Trump "Convicted"!! - Trump's Fraudulent "Fraud" Conviction

Donald Trump has been ordered to pay $354.9 Million in a civil fraud case in New York. He has also been barred from being an officer or director of a company doing business in New York for three years, and his assets will be overseen by an independent "compliance director".

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/16/trump-ordered-to-pay-354-9m-by-new-york-court-in-civil-fraud-case#:~:text=Donald%20Trump%20must%20pay%20%24354.9,imperils%20his%20real%20estate%20empire.

He was accused by the New York State Attorney General of inflating the stated value of his real estate holdings and of committing fraud in order to obtain loans from banks. 

It is important to emphasize that no banks approached the New York State Attorney General who brought this matter before the courts and complained that they had been defrauded. 

In fact, the testimony of bankers during the proceeding showed that they had no problem with the valuations presented by Trump to secure loans, and they were more than capable of assessing and even reassessing the valuations of his properties.

This case is outrageous and sets a terrifying precedent. 

The state moved ahead with a legal proceeding against a business under consumer protection laws where there was no actual complaint against that business from anyone. There is a legitimate role for the state in protecting consumers against predatory businesses that take advantage of a lack of sophistication and knowledge on the part of the consumer. That was not this case where multinational banking conglomerates were more than capable of understanding their business dealings with Donald Trump.

The allegedly aggrieved parties here not only did not complain, but they actually did the complete opposite and went under oath and stated that there was no problem with their business dealings with Donald Trump at all.

They effectively swore under oath that they were not victims! 

These supposed "victims" would not have launched any legal process to recover any funds that they thought they had lost to Donald Trump owing to fraud as they did not think they had been defrauded. There was no criminal trial because no one complained that Trump committed fraud. No victims; no fraud.

See here...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trumps-civil-fraud-verdict-appeal-may-hinge-no-victims-defense-2024-02-16/

This judgment will be appealed, and this may be the crux of the issue...

"'I think the judges are going to have to look carefully at what the powers of the attorney general are here," Germain said. "Are they so broad that any lie can put you out of business, even if nobody believed it?'"

Or, "Can the state find fraud where there are no victims, and where all possible victims assert that they are not victims at all?"

The state should not look behind private business deals to find "fraud" where the participants, who were better able than the state to decide the merits of their own business deals and their actual motivations, did not think there was a problem. If this is allowable, than the state will have adopted to itself the ability to review any business deal at any time to assess what it, and not the participants, deem to be the merits of the arrangement. 

That approach may pass muster in countries that are autocracies, where the real point of such state oversight is to coerce the participants in such business dealings into providing kick-backs to enrich the autocrats and others, or to adjust their personal political beliefs and behaviour. But that is not the American way. This was massive state overreach that has no precedent in New York State. That this has actually happened should cause anyone who believes in basic economic freedom - the freedom to enter into contracts - to pause and reflect. 

This entire charade will be thrown out on appeal, much to the chagrin of Trump haters everywhere. 

 

Trump and Biden - Cognitive Impairment? - With Addendum!!

Trump's recent speech in New Hampshire...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXSy3XyF-eA

Trump made two slight missteps, which any normal person could have made.

Biden's recent speech re: Hamas attack on Israel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1ukaC9cSKQ

Biden made a few minor missteps, but not more than any normal person could have made.

Biden had a few slight missteps more than Trump, but Biden's speech was compact and quite complex, while Trump simply chatted with his audience. 

Biden also had a teleprompter. This was not an advantage - if you think it was, just try following a teleprompter for over 15 minutes sometime. Doing this is not easier than just chatting with your audience.

These men are not cognitively impaired. 

Their missteps, as reported in the American propaganda press recently, both Left and Right, likely come when they are tired. The reality is that old people slow down. These guys are old and they are slowing down. That is all that is happening,

One of them will be the next president of the United States. 

As long as whoever wins the next presidential election has their afternoon naps; and drinks their Ensure; and goes for walkies so they can keep their bodies functional; and spends some time playing with their cats and/or dogs; and remains mentally engaged by playing bingo or parcheesi with the oldsters in any nearby old age home, he will maintain his faculties.

Addendum! 

Biden has been cleared of any wrong-doing related to his ILLEGAL retention of classified materials at his home. As part of the police rationale for giving Biden a pass, the police have questioned his mental acuity, noting things such as he could not remember the timing of his son's death from cancer.

The police must be taken as being neutral actors in matters such as this. If they had concerns about Biden's memory, then we should all have similar concerns.

Biden should have to prove his mental acuity in a public, wide-ranging and neutral series of medical tests as a precondition for running for office in 2024. If, as he claims, there is no problem, then he should pass with flying colours. If there is an issue, he needs to retire, asap.

The Office of the President of the United States is too important to be left to the hubris of the potentially befuddled...

 

 

 

Questionable Georgia Charges against Trump!

Donald Trump has been charged, along with 18 others, with a total of 41 election-related crimes in Georgia, including charges of racketeering, which is normally used to target members of organized crime groups and carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.  

The indictment says this...

"Trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump,"

The first part of the indictment that says this..."Trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost,..." This is totally bizarre. Any candidate is permitted to review an election to the point that they, not some attorney general, are satisfied that they actually lost before conceding, and before the election has actually been certified by Congress, which, at that point, had not happened. So, during the point in time in question - that is, before the certification of the election by Congress - Trump was absolutely within his rights to question the outcome of the election, especially if some of his advisors had been telling him that there was even a long-shot reason to do so, and especially if he thought that the outcome made no sense.

Regarding the charge of trying to unlawfully change the outcome of the election, the case stems, in large part, from a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call in which Trump urged Georgia's top election official, Brad Raffensperger, to "find" enough votes to reverse his narrow loss in the state. Without this call, the charges would very likely not have been brought against Trump. 

Trump said this to Mr. Raffensperger, “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes..."

This quote has appeared repeatedly in the press as purported proof that Trump was asking Mr. Raffensperger to do something illegal, namely, to falsify the results of the presidential election in Georgia, effectively handing it to Trump by inappropriately according him the 11,700 votes he would need to beat Biden.

In fact, during the telephone call between Raffensperger and Trump, which was witnessed by numerous other persons, Trump always included the request to find 11,700 votes within his stated belief that he actually won the state by between 200,000 and 300,000 votes. Asking that 11,700 votes be attributed to him was Trump asking that a fraction of the votes that he thought were actually attributable to him be properly attributed, therefore allowing him to win the state, which he repeatedly stated in the telephone call he thought he did win.

Absent this context, the press reports that include the quote above regarding the request to "find" 11,700 votes are extremely misleading - that is not all that he said, and what the press leaves out is the actual crux of the matter, which is that he repeatedly said that he thought he won.  

More to the point, at no time did Trump say anything like, "I know I lost the election. Could you just send me 11,7000 votes so that I can win, and if you do, I'll make sure you are taken care of?"...

Not only that, but unless one of his associates is going to testify that he actually thought that he had lost the election, and he was trying to perpetrate a fraud in asking for the 11,700 votes, there will be no evidence presented at his trial supporting the charges of "...conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election..." simply because there would be no evidence that he had the guilty mind necessary to make out the charge. 

In short, if the evidence shows that he still believed that he won when he asked for the 11,700 votes, and he still believed that a fraud had been perpetrated, he likely cannot be convicted.

Here is a URL of the call with Raffensperger. I defy anyone to say that Trump had thought that he actually lost, and he had the guilty mind necessary to form an illicit conspiracy to steal the election when the call was made. The transcript simply doesn't support that interpretation.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html

Trump and the 14th Amendment

The Former President and the 14the Amendment - First Glance

Former President Donald Trump has been disqualified from appearing on the ballot in two states - Maine and Colorado - based on the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and the allegation that he engaged in "insurrection" against the United States. 

Here is what Section 3 to the 14th Amendment says:

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

Note that "Rebellion and Insurrection" are also illegal in the United States as follows:

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." [18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection]

In spite of a massive investigation into the actions of Donald Trump on January 6, 2021, he has not been charged with "rebellion or insurrection" under 18 U.S. Code. He has been charged with: i) conspiracy to violate civil rights; ii) conspiracy to defraud the government; iii) the corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding; and iv) conspiracy to carry out such obstruction. "Insurrection" isn't on this list.

How is it possible that former President Trump was disqualified from running for office based on his allegedly having engaged in an "insurrection" when he has not actually been charged with that very thing? 

Put another way, if there is insufficient evidence to charge him with insurrection under 18 U.S. Code based on his actions on January 6, 2021, what is his disqualification from running for office under the 14th Amendment based on?

The Coming Supreme Court Decision on the 14th Amendment

The Supreme Court of the United States has not weighed in one the meaning of the 14th Amendment. That court is guaranteed to hear this case. What follows is a short discussion of how they may dispose of the issue.

The prohibition in the 14th Amendment and the prohibition in 18 U.S. Code are potentially massive in scope. Both could be interpreted as including an intention to overthrow the established political order, and even just dissent, with no actual actions having been taken in that regard. 

This is because of the definition of "insurrection" is as follows: "An act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government."

We have a definition in a definition here. The legal definition of the word "revolting", is as follows: "...a renouncing of allegiance (as to a government or party) especially: a determined armed uprising: a movement or expression of vigorous dissent."

These definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster because, incredibly, these terms do not appear to have been defined in the U.S. Code!

So "insurrection" includes "revolt" that can include "expressions of vigorous dissent". This would imply that anyone who even dissents from the established political order in the United States could be barred from running for office under the 14th Amendment. 

This potential interpretation is so massive that many Socialists and all American Communists could be barred from running for office as both, in different ways, dissent from the established US political, and related to it, the economic order. As well, it could include the Black Lives Matter folks and the MAGA people who also often call for massive changes in the established political order, but for different reasons and to different ends.

There is no way that the US Supreme Court will interpret the prohibition in the 14th Amendment broadly enough to include "expressions of vigorous dissent", as that would upend much of the political order in the United States, and could make a mockery of other rights in the Bill of Rights such as Freedom of Speech in the First Amendment.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the Civil War, which sparked the 14th Amendment in the first place. This is clearly an example of "insurrection".

Regarding the potential disqualification of Donald Trump, what the United States Supreme Court will have to decide is where, on the spectrum between legal dissent on the one hand, and actual illegal war on the other, would Donald Trump's actions on January 6, 2021 lie?  

In deciding this issue, it is suggested here that the test they may use could include the likelihood that the alleged insurrection could have actually succeeded in overthrowing the established political order in the USA. Simple dissent could not ever do this, but the Civil War certainly could have.

So the question may be something like, "Could the insurrection launched by Donald Trump that coalesced on January 6, 2021, have actually overthrown the established political order of the United States of America?"

With former Vice President Pence having refused to participate in the insurrection, and determined to certify the election as he was required to do under the Constitution, the answer is clearly "no". 

As there was no chance that the insurrection could have succeeded, the United States Supreme Court will not disqualified Donald Trump from running for office under 14th Amendment.

Donald Trump needs to buy Mike Pence lunch.