A Democrat National Committee campaign call with members of the press revealed that Democrats are panicking over the candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which has gained enough traction to possibly be a spoiler for President Joe Biden in 2024. 

The call happened right after Kennedy chose tech entrepreneur Nicole Shanahan as his vice presidential candidate during an Oakland, California rally.

The call included Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), Pennsylvania Lieutenant Gov. Austin Davis, and Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

"We are doing everything in our power to get President Biden and Vice President Harris reelected. It's critical that we take seriously every possible obstacle to that goal. And let me be clear, that's exactly what Robert F. Kennedy is in this election. He's a spoiler," Davis said.

Conspiracy theorist

"Him being in the race means that there is a greater likelihood that Donald Trump will become president again," McMorrow said.

The politicians on the call pointed out Kennedy's vaccine skepticism, which was shared by Shanahan.

Garcia called him a "tin foil hat conspiracy theorist" in regard to vaccines, particularly COVID-19 vaccines.

Shanahan has an "anti-health" agenda, he further said.

Spoiler campaign

"He's turning to Trump mega-donors to really support this, really, spoiler campaign. I think he's likely interested in trying to get Donald Trump elected. Maybe that's what this is about. And many of us are not sure, but he is someone that should not be taken seriously as a serious person. I mean, certainly his campaign is quite dangerous," Garcia said.

The reference to Trump mega-donors probably refers to Timothy Mellon, the Mellon banking heir who has given millions to Trump-supporting groups. Last year, Mellon also donated millions to Kennedy-backing super PAC American Values 2024.

"The truth is that he was drafted into this race by Donald Trump's top supporters and is being financed in this race by Trump's largest donor. That isn't merely a coincidence," Davis said.

"He has no realistic path to victory in Pennsylvania," he added. "All he can do is take away votes from President Biden and make it easier for Donald Trump to win, and we simply can't afford to let that happen."

All about Trump

Davis also said Kennedy was "targeting" Black people with his theories and was not an ally of the Black community.

McMorrow later added, "We cannot afford Donald Trump to be back in the White House, which is what is going to happen if people don't see RFK for what he actually is, which is Donald Trump with a Kennedy name slapped on him."

With Kennedy in the race, he gets 11% of the vote, and Trump beats Biden by 2%.

Former President Donald Trump's lawyers argued on Sunday that he had immunity when he retained classified documents on January 20, 2021 and that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed, both arguments that critics pointed out were losers during the Mueller investigation.

While claiming immunity, defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Christopher Kise asked Judge Aileen Cannon to withhold her own immunity ruling until the Supreme Court rules on the question of Trump's immunity in May or June.

"The timeframe alleged for each of Counts 1 – 32 begins on January 20, 2021," the defense brief read. "President Trump was the Commander in Chief until noon that day. As alleged by the Office in the Superseding Indictment, President Trump allegedly made the decision to retain the documents in question, by “caus[ing]” them to be removed from the White House, while he was still President."

Article II of the U.S. Constitution has generally been understood to grant presidents immunity from criminal prosecution and from lawsuits, a point that Trump has raised repeatedly in some of his civil and criminal cases.

The pros and cons

Although he is being prosecuted now, many of the charges stem from dates when he was President of the United States.

The Supreme Court will weigh in on whether his reasoning is consistent with the Constitution.

On the one hand, the president may need to act in ways as president that are not seen as lawful, and the Founding Fathers recognized this.

On the other hand, it is probably not wise in this day and age to suggest that no matter what a president does, he can't be prosecuted.

It seems reasonable to ask Cannon to wait until the Supreme Court rules on immunity, even though it has to frustrate Smith, who seems almost desperate to convict Trump of something before the election, believing it will hurt his chances to be elected.

Weaker argument

The argument that Smith as special prosecutor is unlawful is a weaker argument than immunity, given that it was tried in the Robert Mueller investigation and failed there.

Trump's defense team argued that Smith's prosecution is invalid because he was not confirmed by the Senate.

“If U.S. Attorneys are principal officers—and they are—then so too must a Special Counsel’s appointment require Senate confirmation,” the lawyers argued.

Relevant law seems to state that because he was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was himself confirmed by the Senate, that is all that's needed, however.

The argument seems like a stretch, but in today's court system, one never knows what's going to work.

When reporters caught up to former First Lady Melania Trump on Tuesday as she and former President Donald Trump voted in the Florida primary and asked her whether she would join him on the campaign trail, she would only say, "Stay tuned."

Melania has been mostly absent from the public eye since her husband left office in 2021.

She appeared at his campaign announcement in 2022 and could be seen at her mother's funeral in January and on a few other rare occasions, but does not seem to crave the spotlight like some first ladies do--at least according to her husband.

She has not been with her husband at any of his court appearances, rallies, or victory speeches following primary wins.

A "private person"

The former president was asked last month at a Fox News town hall about Melania's many absences and said she was a "private person" who would rather be with their family than on camera or in public.

“You know, a lot of first ladies would go out — they want to be everywhere. They get angry at their husband because he’s not introducing them,” Trump said. “If I didn’t introduce Melania, she’d be very happy about it. She’s just a different kind of a person.”

Melania did tell Fox News in May 2023 that she supported her husband's re-elect bid.

“He has my support, and we look forward to restoring hope for the future and leading America with love and strength,” Melania Trump said in an interview at the time.

“My husband achieved tremendous success in his first administration, and he can lead us toward greatness and prosperity once again,” she added.

Lack of chivalry?

Other reports have corroborated Trump's narrative that she is focused on her family, most notably 17-year-old son Barron. But with Barron going to college in the fall, she will have a lot more time on her hands for last-minute campaigning.

A former top aide to both Melania and Donald as well as someone who has claimed to be close friend of Melania Trump, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff recently noted a lack of chivalry toward Melania that she thought was concerning and posted about it on X.

Let me bottom line this for you

Perception is everything to the Trump Family so Donald’s lack of “chivalry” towards Melania is quite a “tell.”

Chivalry for Donald was waiting for Melania to go first & ensuring she walked by his side. He’s been doing neither recently. Take a 👀 pic.twitter.com/D82WGO8iHB

— Stephanie Winston Wolkoff (@SWinstonWolkoff) March 10, 2024

Whether or not Wolkoff was ever a friend of the Trumps, she now spends her time criticizing them, so we really can't take her observations at face value or as proof that their relationship has deteriorated.

Whatever is going on behind the scenes, if anything, it's obvious the Trumps will try to keep things under wraps for now.

Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann got major pushback Saturday for posting a wish for former President Donald Trump to be assassinated, couched as a joke, on X.

Olbermann replied to a Biden-Harris post consisting of a video of a Trump speech that the account had captioned: "Trump says he has been treated worse than Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated.”

Olbermann's obnoxious reply: "There's always hope."

The reply was removed by X, which said it violated the platform's rules, but the comments about it remain.

A scolding

Before its removal, many users saw fit to scold Olbermann over his words, which could be taken as a death threat against Trump.

"You do realize that calling for the assassination of political opposition would make you the bad guys...right?" a user called Clandestine posted.

You do realize that calling for the assassination of political opposition would make you the bad guys… right? pic.twitter.com/z7KU8Iuhkg

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) March 17, 2024

Spitfire reported the post to @Safety and @Support as a "TOS violation" and suggested, "Perhaps @SecretService should pay Keith a visit. We all know Keith is mentally unstable."

A patriot named Sandra with an American flag after her name reacted saying, "My gawd. Did he really say that????? I dislike a lot of people, but would never wish death upon them."

Doug Ross simply posted, "Seek help."

A long history

Olbermann has a long history of making inflammatory statements regarding Trump and other people he dislikes on social media, even after he was booted from cable news.

Last September he called Bill Maher a "scumbag" for criticizing the Hollywood writers strike. Maher is a liberal by any standard.

He told champion swimmer Riley Gaines she "sucked" at swimming during the controversy over transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, who was able to beat Gaines because he is biologically male.

In February 2023, he demanded that blue states wage "economic civil war" on red states(never mind that they would lose in a landslide if they did). Basically, he has lost the plot and descended into a political uber-ideology that just makes him look ridiculous, but he's so hyperpartisan he can't see it.

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed Monday to adjourn his Manhattan hush money trial until after the Supreme Court rules on whether he has presidential immunity, possibly in June.

"The Court should adjourn the trial pending Supreme Court review of the scope of the presidential immunity doctrine in Trump v. United States, which is scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2024," the motion states, adding that it should also be adjourned "following an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury, preclude evidence of President Trump’s official acts at trial based on presidential immunity."

Judge Juan Merchan set jury selection to start on March 25 and said he expects the trial to last six weeks.

Bragg alleges that Trump "repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election."

Trump denies wrongdoing

Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in the case. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

A previous request to dismiss the trial altogether was denied by Merchan.

The charges are related to payments allegedly made by Trump through then-advisor Michael Cohen, although Trump says Cohen made the payments independently and that he didn't know anything about them.

Cohen says Trump did know, and that Trump paid him back after the fact.

More delays

The immunity question is in relation to a different case, Special Counsel Jack Smith's election interference case against Trump in Washington, D.C.

Trump has claimed immunity in several of the cases against him, however, so it's no surprise that he would use the Supreme Court's decision to look at the issue to delay other cases.

Smith's case in D.C. was scheduled to start on March 4, but has now been put on hold until after the immunity ruling.

It's looking doubtful that any of the criminal cases against Trump will be resolved before the 2024 election, which means he won't have to deal with any criminal convictions while campaigning.

On the other hand, most of these legal matters have only helped his popularity as his supporters decry the legitimacy of the charges and claim that prosecutors are persecuting him for his politics.

Still, polls have suggested that a conviction in a criminal case would hurt his chances of re-election, so it's in his best interest to delay as much as possible.

House Republicans have released their own report on January 6, 2021 ahead of the coming presidential race between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden in November.

The Republicans' report aims to discredit the January 6 Select Committee and absolve Trump of any responsibility for the Capitol breach, in which several thousand supporters entered the Capitol when they were not authorized to do so.

Chair of the House Administration Committee’s Oversight subpanel Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) led the report, which accused the now-defunct Democrat-controlled January 6 Select Committee of conducting a witch hunt designed to hurt Trump politically.

The report accuses the Capitol Police of security failures, suggests that the committee's star witness Cassidy Hutchinson was unreliable, and said that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) made sure that Trump's guilt in the incident was predetermined.

Correcting the narrative

“This House Administration Oversight Subcommittee investigation is necessary to correct the incomplete narrative advanced by the partisan Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, and today’s initial report is an important step in that process,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said in a statement.

Critics of the Republican report point out that it didn't address Trump's refusal to accept the election results, his decision to have a rally in D.C. on the day of vote certification, or his directive for people to go to the Capitol to continue to protest, which he did ask to be "peaceful."

Select Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) called the Republican report "dishonest" and added, “Loudermilk is merely trying to deflect from Donald Trump’s responsibility for the violence of January 6th and his own refusal to answer the Select Committee’s questions."

Loudermilk's committee will hold a number of hearings about January 6 in the near future, starting with the pipe bombs that were found in the area that day, which no one was ever arrested for.

What about the pipe bombs?

“Despite the threat the pipe bombs posed and the possible role they played in diverting resources away from the Capitol, the Select Committee invested almost no resources into investigating the pipe bombs,” the report read.

The committee also plans to delve more into Hutchinson's testimony, which they claim was inconsistent.

Hutchinson claims that she had bad legal counsel initially when she was using a Trump-paid lawyer, but that she was able to be more honest when she got her own counsel.

Her testimony that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol during the riot and tried to grab the steering wheel when he was told no by his Secret Service personnel was contradicted by the driver of the car and others present.

The Republican report obviously aims to put forward a better narrative for Trump, but it does make some valid points about the partisan nature of the Select Committee's report.

While in all likelihood neither one is 100% correct, it's clear that Trump didn't intend for the riot to occur or plan for it to happen.

Louisiana has become the 28th state to have a constitutional carry law with Governor Jeff Landry's (R) signature on the legislation on Tuesday. 

Landry campaigned on constitutional carry and said it was just the beginning of his efforts to protect citizens' rights in the state.

Criminals already carry concealed firearms without regard for the law. Constitutional Carry simply puts law-abiding citizens on equal footing. #lagov #lalege pic.twitter.com/UJNNOK5OiZ

— Governor Jeff Landry (@LAGovJeffLandry) February 28, 2024

After both state houses passed the law, Landry posted on X: "Criminals already carry concealed firearms without regard for the law. Constitutional carry simply puts law-abiding citizens on equal footing."

No restrictions

Before the law was passed and signed, Louisiana had permitless carry for military members and veterans, but not for other citizens.

A graphic within the post showed in yellow the states with constitutional carry laws. Most notably, the east and west coasts are mostly where such laws are absent. Most of the country's middle was yellow other than Colorado and New Mexico in the South and Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota in the Northern Midwest.

Constitutional carry means that there are no restrictions on carrying handguns for any person who is legally allowed to do so (for instance, has a clean criminal record and no evidence of wanting to harm themselves).

Permitless carry means that permits to carry a handgun are not needed as long as state citizens meet certain requirements. For instance, Tennesseeans who have one DUI in the last five years or two in the last 10 years need a permit to carry there, but others don't.

Most constitutional carry laws recent

Vermont is the only constitutional carry state that has had such a law in effect since 1791, when the government was formed after the Revolutionary War ended (to be fair, most states weren't even states then).

Most of the other state laws were passed after the turn of the 21st century, and 16 states passed their constitutional carry laws within the last five years.

The laws apply to adults, with ages ranging from 18 to 21 in different states.

Gun-free zones

There may be times and places, such as churches, schools, and government buildings where people in a particular state are not permitted to carry a firearm or other weapon.

While gun-free zones are meant to protect citizens, particularly children, from gun violence, 2nd Amendment advocates argue that gun-free zones are less safe because criminals don't follow gun restrictions and may still be carrying a weapon there, with no law-abiding gun carriers to stop them from carrying out a shooting.

In any case, it's a step in the right direction for Louisiana.

 

Retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig appeared on CNN to criticize the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment as part of a ballot case involving former President Donald Trump.

Luttig didn't criticize the decision to keep Trump on the ballot, but he did call the larger 14th Amendment ruling “both shocking and unprecedented.”

“Not for its decision of the exceedingly narrow question presented by the case, though that issue is important, but rather for its decision to reach and decide a myriad of the other constitutional issues surrounding disqualification under [the] 14th Amendment,” Luttig told Jake Tapper.

It's the ruling that only Congress can enforce the 14th Amendment for federal candidates that Luttig thinks is overreaching.

Won't ever happen

“In reaching and deciding those questions unnecessarily, the court, the majority, as the concurrences said, effectively decided that the former president will never be disqualified from holding the presidency in 2024. Or ever, for that matter,” Luttig continued.

Luttig's argument is that this ruling makes it impossible to ever disqualify anyone for any federal office, since Congress is usually divided and won't agree to do so.

“But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,” he said.

Luttig compared the ruling to the Warren court's judicial activism.

“It’s stunning in its overreach. It’s a textbook example, Jake, of the kind of activist judicial opinion from the 1960s and the Warren Court era that begat the conservative legal and judicial movement in the 1970s and 1980s. But of course, it’s different here. Because this is unmistakably a conservative court,” he said.

Luttig's real agenda

To be clear, Luttig wanted Trump off the ballot in Colorado. He filed an amicus brief in the case to that effect.

That gives context to his complaint and puts it into perspective.

Where Amy Coney Barrett called the liberal justices "strident" for expressing pretty much what Luttig did about the congressional requirement, Luttig was quick to disagree.

“Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who did not join the other five in the overreaching decisions that it made, accuse the three concurrences of stridency in their opinions,” Luttig said. “For your listeners and your viewers: There was not one word of stridency in the concurring opinion by Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor, [Elena] Kagan, and [Ketanji Brown] Jackson. Not one single word of stridency.”

Even when the justice agreed, they disagreed, and that's probably about as good as it's going to get.

Hunter Schafer, who plays Jules on the HBO teen drama "Euphoria," was arrested on Monday with 33 others for participating in a protest of President Joe Biden's stance on Israel and Gaza as he taped an episode of "Late Night" with Seth Myers.

Schafer got a summons for trespassing for sitting in the lobby of 30 Rock with members of Jewish Voice for Peace. She was photographed wearing a "Cease-fire now" t-shirt with her arms restrained behind her by a police officer.

The organization members held banners reading “Jews to Biden: Stop arming genocide” and “Lasting cease-fire,” and they chanted, “No more weapons, no more war. Cease-fire is what we’re fighting for” and "Not in our name."

They don't agree that Israel should seek to eliminate Hamas completely even after Hamas terrorists attacked Israel on October 7, killed 1,200 people and took 200 hostages.

Hamas claims

Hamas claims that Israel has killed 30,000 Gazans in its response to the attack, including many women and children, but there's no way to know whether they are telling the truth.

Israel has said that its goal is to annihilate Hamas so that it can't ever launch another attack on Israel again.

Biden has encouraged a temporary cease-fire in Gaza, and he told reporters while getting ice cream with Myers that he was hopeful that a cease-fire would happen soon.

“I hope by the end of the weekend,” he told reporters in ice cream parlor next door to Peacock headquarters. “My national security adviser tells me that we’re close, we’re close, we’re not done yet. My hope is by next Monday we’ll have a cease-fire.”

Both Israel and Hamas said after Biden's comments that they were not close to a cease-fire deal.

Cease-fire would be temporary

National Security Adviser John Kirby made it clear, however, that even if a cease-fire agreement does happen, it will be temporary and only last six weeks at most.

“We still don’t believe that a general cease-fire, meaning a permanent cease-fire, that this is the right time for that — a cease-fire that leaves Hamas in control and alleviates any responsibility for them to release the hostages,” White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said.

In reality, a cease-fire would only accomplish one thing--giving Hamas time to regroup and rearm.

Iran and maybe China are waiting in the wings to give them all the money they need to do so.

How will any kind of cease-fire help Israel to meet its goal of annihilation? It won't, and everybody knows it.

Now that the White House can blame Republicans for not passing border security legislation, President Joe Biden has decided to visit the border on Thursday to use his bully pulpit. 

“Biden will travel to Brownsville, Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley, an area that often sees large numbers of border crossings,” the Monday report said.

“He will meet with border agents and discuss the need for bipartisan legislation,” it added.

Biden has been public about his plans to blame the other side for illegal immigration even though he reversed all of Trump's policies on day one of his term and record numbers of migrants have been streaming across the border for more than three years.

Blaming Trump

“I’ll be taking this issue to the country … Every day between now and November, the American people are going to know that the only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican friends,” Biden claimed on February 7.

But the visit will only be the second time he has been to the border, and the first visit was to an area without many crossings.

More than 6.2 million illegal immigrants have been allowed by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to enter the country, which amounts to two migrants for every three live births in the U.S.

Illegal immigration is unpopular with voters because it drains taxpayer resources, makes rents higher, and takes away American jobs.

Voters blaming Biden

A new Gallup poll released on February 23 after the failure of the immigration bill showed Biden's approval at 38% and approval of his handling of immigration at 28%, a new low.

It seems like Americans are not fooled by Biden's sudden interest in the border, and know exactly where the blame lies.

It's a case of too little, too late on border security, no matter how Biden tries to spin it.

Biden's decision to reverse all of Trump's successful immigration and border policies has not only led to an influx of over 10 million illegal immigrants including gotaways, it has also led to an epidemic of fentanyl overdoses because of the trafficking of fentanyl across the now-virtually open border.

Leading cause of death

Fentanyl overdose is now the leading cause of death for American adults under 45.

Fentanyl causes 70% of overdose deaths because it is 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. Even a tiny amount of fentanyl is enough to kill a person, and when drug dealers cut it into other drugs, they often make mistakes that cause fatal overdoses.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts