President Joe Biden is privately growing "angry and anxious" about his reelection. 

This is according to a report, published over the weekend, by NBC News.

The report is titled, Behind the scene, Biden has grown angry and anxious about the re-election effort. Biden locked up the Democratic nomination last week, but looking ahead to the general election, anxiety has seemed to increase. 

As we will see, there is every reason for Biden to be "angry and anxious."

Here's what has Biden worried:

According to NBC News' report, Biden has been particularly unsettled by his poor polling in battleground states.

"President Joe Biden was seething. In a private meeting at the White House in January, allies of the president had just told him that his poll numbers in Michigan and Georgia had dropped over his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas," NBC News reports.

The outlet continues, "Both are battleground states he narrowly won four years ago, and he can’t afford any backsliding if he is to once again defeat Donald Trump. He began to shout and swear, a lawmaker familiar with the meeting said. He believed he had been doing what was right, despite the political fallout, he told the group, according to the lawmaker."

This may help to explain the White House's shift, in recent weeks, with regard to the Israel-Hamas war.

It's clear that Biden now seems to think that a more pro-Palestinian approach will better suit his reelection campaign.

It's almost all bad

It is no secret that Biden is facing a steep uphill climb to reelection.

His approval rating, on average, currently sits at only 40.2%, according to Real Clear Politics. Some individual polls have Biden below 40%, which NBC notes is "is lower than that of the last three presidents who went on to lose re-election."

But, this is only part of Biden's problem. The polls show that he is significantly underwater on just about every major political issue, including the economy, foreign policy, immigration, inflation, crime, and much more.

And, perhaps, the most troubling polls of all are the ones showing that Biden is trailing Trump in just about every battleground state. Forbes, at the end of February, reported, "Biden is trailing Trump by an average of five points in the seven swing states: North Carolina (9), Arizona (6), Georgia (6), Nevada (6), Pennsylvania (6), Wisconsin (4) and Michigan (2), the Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll found."

Biden, since then, has begun an aggressive reelection campaign strategy that started with his State of the Union Address. But, this did not produce any positive bump in the polls. So, indeed, there is every reason for Biden to be "angry and anxious" about his reelection chances.

Steve Harley, the British musician known, among other things, for the song Make Me Smile, has died at the age of 73. 

Harley's passing has been confirmed by his family, which has released a statement via The Guardian.

"Desperately missed"

According to his family, Harley died at his home in Suffolk, England, on the morning of Sunday, March 17, 2024.

"We are devastated to announce that our wonderful husband and father has passed away peacefully at home, with his family by his side," the family wrote.

It continued, "The birdsong from his woodland that he loved so much was singing for him. His home has been filled with the sounds and laughter of his four grandchildren. Whoever you know him as, his heart exuded only core elements. Passion, kindness, generosity. And much more, in abundance."

The cause of death was cancer. Harley had been receiving treatment for it up until his death.

Harley's family said that the singer will be "desperately missed by people all over the world."

Who was Steve Harley?

Harley, whose birth name is Stephen Malcolm Ronald Nice, was an English singer and songwriter, who was the frontman for the band Cockney Rebel.

"He formed Cockney Rebel, which released a debut album, The Human Menagerie, in 1973 before foundering over creative differences. With a new lineup and rebranded as Steve Harley and Cockney Rebel, the band released the 1975 album The Best Years of Our Lives, which contained Harley’s biggest hit," the Associated Press reports.

This big hit was Make Me Smile. 

The outlet continues, "With its barbed lyrics – aimed at Harley’s former bandmates -- and infectiously catchy chorus, the Alan Parsons-produced Make Me Smile topped the U.K. singles chart. It went on to be covered scores of times and was used on countless soundtracks, including in the 1997 film The Full Monty and in ads for Carlsberg beer, department store Marks and Spencer, and Viagra."

Harley was also known for several other hit singles, including Judy Teen and Mr. Soft. 

Tour canceled

Rolling Stone reports that Harley's death comes not long after he announced that he had to cancel his music tour in order to undergo treatment for cancer. "While cause of death wasn’t revealed, Harley died just a month after he announced that he would step away from touring in 2024 'due to on-going treatment for cancer,'" the outlet writes.

At the time, Harley said that he "is hoping next year will be altogether different."

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) - the man who infamously pushed the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax - took aim at the U.S. Supreme Court over the weekend. 

Schiff did so, according to The Hill, during an appearance Sunday on CNN's State of the Union. 

There, Schiff appeared to take exception to the court's handling of the so-called election interference case that Special Counsel Jack Smith has brought against former President Donald Trump.

During the interview, Anchor Dana Bash asked Schiff, "It seems as though the Trump strategy to delay these cases is paying off. Do you think there’s a chance that he might not stand trial in any of these cases before election day?"

Shiff claims they're doing it on purpose

What Bash is getting at, here, is that Smith has made it clear that he wants a criminal conviction of Trump before the 2024 general election for the obvious reason that it would be easier for President Joe Biden to campaign against a convicted criminal.

But, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's appeal regarding his presidential immunity defense, there is a good chance that Smith will not get his wish, which would be a significant victory for Trump.

Schiff replied to Bash, saying, "There is a chance that [Trump] could evade justice by delaying justice. This is a tried-and-true tactic of Trump throughout his career, and I hope that the courts are aware of exactly what he’s doing and his incentive in trying to prolong this."

The congressman continued, "I hope they will go along with that strategy in New York. I hope that they will look at the facts in terms of what caused the late release of this discovery if it was driven by the Trump defense team not requesting it earlier, they should not postpone the trial any further."

What Schiff was referring to, here, is the recent delay that the New York courts granted in the criminal case that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) has brought against Trump - the so-called hush-money case.

"My greatest concern"

Schiff went on to claim that his "greatest concern" is regarding Smith's "election interference" case. It is here that Schiff went after the Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court moved with great speed when it came to ruling that Trump could appear on the ballot. The question is, will it also move at great speed in rejecting this bogus immunity claim? If it doesn’t, it’s making a deliberate decision essentially to push the trial past the election, and I think that would be a terrible decision both for the interest of justice," Shiff said.

He added, "It’ll be a terrible decision in depriving American voters of the information they would learn during the course of that trial, but it would also just further discredit this partisan and reactionary court."

Trump, himself, responded to Schiff's interview on Monday.

Trump wrote, "Can you imagine Adam Shifty Schiff talking about me “EVADING JUSTICE,” WHEN HE IS THE MOST OUTRAGEOUSLY CROOKED POLITICIAN OUT THERE, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF CROOKED JOE BIDEN, THE WORST PRESIDENT, BY FAR, IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES???"

Columnist Ross Rosenfeld is claiming that Nikki Haley will be former President Donald Trump's running mate pick. 

Rosenfeld put his argument forth in a piece that he published last week for Newsweek.

Here's why it is unlikely to happen:

This comes after Haley recently dropped out of the 2024 Republican Presidential Primary and after Trump secured the Republican Party's presidential nomination.

If you have been following the primaries at all, then you probably know that a lot of bad blood has developed between Trump and Haley. Rosenfeld began his piece by highlighting this fact.

"Nikki Haley has said that Donald Trump has become significantly 'diminished' in his mental capacity, is 'not qualified' to be president, and is in fact 'unhinged.' She's accused him of cozying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said his positions on NATO are 'bone-chilling,' and (following comments Trump made about Haley's deployed husband) that he is 'disgusting,'" Rosenfeld writes.

He continues, "Trump, for his part, has said that Haley has 'gone crazy,' has mocked her race and heritage by making fun of her birth name, and has implied, as he did with former President Barack Obama, that she might not really be American."

For these reasons, you may think it extremely unlikely that Trump will pick Haley to be his vice president. But, Rosenfeld claims that he will.

Here's why:

In his piece, Rosenfeld put forth several reasons why he believes that Trump will pick Haley despite the bad blood.

For one thing, Rosenfeld writes that Trump is "an opportunist, and one who has a history of making alliances that benefit him, even with people he's railed against as if they were his worst enemy." Rosenfeld goes on to provide examples to back this claim up.

Rosenfeld then provides another reason for Trump to pick Haley, which is that "Trump has also shown a tendency to do whatever is politically or financially expedient for him." And, there is no doubt that Trump could use Haley's voters if he wants to win the upcoming election.

Rosenfeld further claims that Haley could be an asset for Trump, considering her campaign and debate skills, that Haley would agree to be Trump's running mate because she is also an opportunist, and that Trump will pick Haley because he does not have great alternatives.

Admittedly, some of these reasons are less convincing than others.

So, will it happen?

It's hard to say, but it certainly cannot be ruled out, precisely because Trump needs to secure independent voters to stand a better chance of winning the general election and Haley can be a big help in this regard.

According to a recent report from Politico, however, Trump, since Haley dropped out of the primary race, "hasn’t reached out to Haley or some of her top allies at all."

A former district attorney recently explained what could happen if Florida Judge Aileen Cannon were to dismiss the case that Special Counsel Jack Smith has brought against former President Donald Trump, Newsweek reports.

This is the case in which Smith has accused Trump of illegally mishandling classified materials when he left the White House at the end of his administration.

Trump has pled not guilty to the charges, and he claims that Smith is running election interference for President Joe Biden, considering that Trump is Biden's 2024 challenger.

To support this claim, many have pointed, among other things, to the fact that Special Counsel Robert Hur decided not to prosecute Biden over his classified documents scandal despite the fact that Hur found that Biden broke the law.

Here's what could happen

The former U.S. district attorney, who spoke about Trump's classified documents case, is Preet Bharara. He did so during a recent episode of his Stay Tuned with Preet podcast.

There, Bharara specifically talked about what Smith could do if Cannon were to dismiss the case.

Bharara said:

If she does dismiss the charges Jack Smith and his team can appeal that decision. If there's an acquittal in a case, the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal by a jury because that would violate double jeopardy. But dismissal of charges or of any counts by a judge is appealable to the relevant circuit court and here it's the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bharara also said that Smith's other option would be to move to have Cannon removed from the case.

Bharara said:

I think there's a decent argument in favor strategically of asking for recusal on top of asking for a dismissal to be reversed given the state of the law and given the lack of merit of those motions. It's always fraught, it's generally not done on the basis of competence but done on the basis of some perceived bias on the part of that judge given particular rulings that have been made and I think they would have a reasonable basis to make that argument.

Background

At the time of this writing, Cannon has chosen not to dismiss Smith's case.

The most recent thing to happen in the case is that Cannon granted Trump's request for the case to be delayed.

Newsweek separately reported, "Cannon granted Trump a 10-day extension after hearing that he and his lawyers are preparing for Trump's Stormy Daniels hush money trial in New York, which begins later this month."

Smith and his team were clearly not happy with this ruling.

It is unclear how this case is going to play out from here. But, there is no doubt about the fact that Cannon is under significant scrutiny from the political left.

The leftist outlet CNN just gave a new drama series - that was inspired by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton - a big thumbs down. 

The thumbs down came from CNN's Brian Lowry.

He published a piece criticizing the series on Wednesday, March 13. The piece is titled, Journalism could use a smart show about reporting. "The Girls on the Bus" isn't it. 

This has to be particularly humiliating for Clinton. Before we get to what Lowry had to say about the series, we'll get you up to speed regarding what it is about.

The Girls On The Bus

The series comes from Max, and it was adapted from former New York Times reporter Amy Chozick's memoir about Clinton 2016 presidential campaign.

Here is Max's billing of the series:

Four female journalists find friendship, love, and scandal as they follow a parade of flawed candidates in an unpredictable presidential campaign.

Chozick, in her memoir, decided not to make it specifically about Hillary Clinton.

She explains:

I felt, just as a writer, fatigue in writing about real life. I think the country feels fatigue....[Also] politics is dark and divisive. And I think our show is a light dramedy....I almost want it to be an escape. That was sort of our goal; this alternate reality that is fun, light, kind of escapist.

That being said, there is no doubt about the fact that the series is inspired by Clinton's failed 2016 presidential run.

What's wrong with it?

According to Lowry, The Girls On The Bus is, "at best, a frothy soap opera" and, at worst, "an ethical twilight zone.”

Lowry writes that the series, "As very, very loosely adapted for TV by Chozick and Julie Plec (The Vampire Diaries), working with another CW veteran in producer Greg Berlanti, Girls on the Bus devolves into a CW-style drama that occasionally addresses the slow death of journalism on the most perfunctory level."

He adds, "At a moment when journalism would benefit from any kind of morale lift, the last thing it needs is another broadly drawn series that seems to put a spotlight on the profession’s principles before backing over them."

Lowry is not the only leftist to criticize the series. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have done so as well.

Variety, for example, writes, "Its frequent silliness feels inappropriate, while its occasional grandstanding comes off as entirely out of its depth," while The Hollywood Reporter takes issue with the series' "cheesy romance, clunky drama, and predictable twists and turns."

The so-called hush-money case that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) has brought against former President Donald Trump has been delayed. 

The Associated Press reports that, on Friday, Judge Juan Manuel Merchan, the judge overseeing the case, made the decision to put the case on hold.

This will push the case back by several weeks.

Read on to see why this is another significant win for Trump - and defeat for Bragg and the Democrats.

Why the delay?

Reuters provides the relevant background on this case.

Per the outlet:

Trump has pleaded not guilty in the New York case to 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide his former lawyer Michael Cohen's $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence about a sexual encounter she has said they had a decade earlier. Trump has denied having had any such encounter with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

It was Trump's legal team that recently requested that the trial be delayed.

The request was made, according to the Associated Press, after Bragg dumped a huge amount of "evidence" - over 100,000 pages of documents - on Trump's defense team. Trump's legal team told the judge that they need more time to sift through the evidence to properly prepare their defense of Trump.

Merchan agreed. The trial was supposed to begin on March 25. But, now, it will not start until at least April 15.

Here's why the delay is a big deal:

Bragg is one of several Democratic prosecutors who is looking to get a criminal conviction of Trump before the 2024 presidential election. The purpose of such a conviction is obvious - it is to hurt Trump, the Republican Party's presidential nominee, in the general election.

The longer the case gets delayed the less likely it is that these Democratic prosecutors will get this coveted conviction of Trump.

As Reuters put it, "Justice Juan Merchan's decision to delay the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president marks another victory for Trump, who has sought to slow down proceedings in his various legal entanglements as he prepares to challenge President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election."

Trump responded to Merchan's ruling on social media, through spokesperson Steven Cheung.

Cheung said:

President Trump and his counsel have been consistent and steadfast that this case has no basis in law or fact, and should be dismissed. Today, after conceding serious discovery violations by his office, the Manhattan DA agreed to an adjournment. We will continue to fight to end this Hoax, and all of the other Crooked Joe Biden - directed Witch Hunts, once and for all.

Billionaire Elon Musk has declared that "CNN is dying." 

Musk, according to Fox News, did so this past week, after he canceled X's partnership with Don Lemon.

The outlet reports:

X owner Elon Musk declared "CNN is dying" this week during a social media spat with former host Don Lemon, fueling questions about whether the network's years-long struggle to attract viewers means it's on life support.

Musk, as will be demonstrated, definitely has a point here, and, if CNN is dying, then so are its stars, including Anderson Cooper, Chris Wallace, Wolf Blitzer, and all the rest. In fact, their days really could be numbered.

"Lowest rated year of all time"

It is no secret that CNN is really struggling these days. According to Fox, 2023, was CNN's "lowest-rated year of all time."

The outlet reports, "In 2023, CNN had its lowest-rated year of all time, going back more than three decades, across multiple categories. CNN averaged only 582,000 primetime viewers to finish No. 12 among cable networks, with a smaller audience than networks such as TLC, Hallmark, and HGTV."

CNN is under new management, but things do not really seem to be improving. Now, State of the Union reports that new CNN CEO Mark Thompson is looking to make some significant changes.

Per the outlet:

According to reports, CNN’s new CEO Mark Thompson is planning significant cuts and changes at the network to address falling ratings, potentially putting several high profile anchors on the “chopping block.”

The "high profile anchors" who are at risk could reportedly include Anderson Cooper, Chris Wallace, Wolf Blitzer, and Jake Tapper.

The Musk-Lemon spat

Musk's declaration - that "CNN is dying" - came after a recent "spat" with Deon Lemon. The spat was actually an interview of Musk conducted by Lemon that went really wrong.

Musk, during the interview, appeared to take particular exception to some of the questions that Lemon asked him, and things got combative, to say the least.

The spat ended with Musk canceling X's partnership with Lemon.

Musk, afterward, defended his decision, writing:

[Lemon's] approach was basically just "CNN, but on social media", which doesn’t work, as evidenced by the fact that CNN is dying. And, instead of it being the real Don Lemon, it was really just Jeff Zucker talking through Don, so lacked authenticity. All this said, Lemon/Zucker are of course welcome to build their viewership on this platform along with everyone else.

Lemon has since threatened to take Musk to court if Musk does not pay Lemon for their deal.

Embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) is facing a contempt of Congress charge. 

The Hill reports that, this past week, U.S Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) - the leader of the House Judiciary Committee - threatened Willis with the charge.

Jordan did so in a letter that he sent to Willis on March 14, 2024.

The letter can be read in its entirety here.

"Dear Ms. Willis"

According to The Epoch Times, the contempt of Congress charge would be for Willis' failure to comply with a congressional subpoena.

The subpoena was for documents relating to Willis's alleged misuse of federal funds.

According to Jordan, Willis has still not completely complied with the subpoena.

In his letter, he writes, "While you have indicated that additional documents may be forthcoming in response to the Committee’s subpoena, the Committee has yet to receive any additional responsive materials in the three weeks since your initial response."

"Accordingly, the Committee expects that you will produce all responsive documents to the subpoena in the categories prioritized by the Committee no later than 12:00 p.m. on March 28, 2024. If you fail to do so, the Committee will consider taking further action, such as the invocation of contempt of Congress proceedings," Jordan adds.

What now?

Willis, at the time of this writing, has not responded to Jordan's latest letter.

She has, however, responded to previous ones, and, in doing so, she has insisted that she has done nothing wrong.

In February, for example, Willis wrote:

These false allegations are included in baseless litigation filed by a holdover employee from the previous administration who was terminated for cause. The courts that have ruled found no merit in these claims. We expect the same result in any pending litigation. Any examination of the records of our grant programs will find that they are highly effective and conducted in cooperation with the Department of Justice and in compliance with all Department of Justice requirements.

It ought to be noted that this is a separate matter from the situation that is currently going on in Georgia, where Nathan Wade - the man whom Willis hired to prosecute former President Donald Trump - has resigned from the case after a judge ruled that Wade must go if Willis wants to stay on the case. The ruling followed allegations that Wade and Willis engaged in an affair and that, during this affair, Wade used the money that Willis gave him - for the prosecution of Trump - to take her on trips.

The alleged misuse of federal funds is a different matter that is being investigated by Jordan's committee.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court just issued a ruling in an important First Amendment case, Lindke v. Freed.

At issue in this case, according to ABC News, was whether public officials violate the U.S. Constitution when they block constituents on social media.

The justices did issue a unanimous decision. But, they did not give a clear-cut, "yes" or "no" ruling.

Rather, they put forth a test that lower courts can use to judge whether or not a public official violates the U.S. Constitution when they block constituents on social media.

The test

Whether or not the blockage is Constitutional, according to the justices, depends on whether the official is acting in his or her official capacity or whether the official is acting personally.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:

When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private. We hold that such speech is attributable to the state only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the state's behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media.

It, of course, can be extremely difficult to make this distinction considering that many officials use their social media accounts for both private and public purposes.

Barrett said that what is important here is the "substance," not the "labels."

"Private parties can act with the authority of the state, and state officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights. Categorizing conduct, therefore, can require a close look," Barrett wrote.

Background

The Hill provides the relevant background of this case. There were two separate cases, from different parts of the country, that dealt with the same issue.

"The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the Michigan case, sided with the city manager, James Freed, who deleted comments on his Facebook page left by a resident and blocked several of the resident’s profiles. The resident, Kevin Lindke, had criticized Freed over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, court filings indicate," the outlet reports.

The Hill adds, "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the California case, said Poway, Calif., school board members Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane violated the First Amendment after blocking constituents on their Facebook pages and O’Conner-Ratcliff’s account on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter."

To clarify, the justices of the Supreme Court did not affirm or deny either ruling in either case. Rather, they put forth the test, and now it is up to the lower courts to apply this test in each case.

Time will tell how effective this test is to solving the problem.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts