The U.S. Supreme Court will soon determine much of former President Donald Trump's legal fate when it takes up arguments this week regarding his presidential immunity defense. 

According to The Hill, the former president held nothing back in offering his thoughts on the consequences of presidents not enjoying immunity, and what it would mean for the future.

Trump issued the warning over the weekend in a Truth Social post, drawing thousands of comments.

The former president made the post in the wake of a judge in his ongoing New York trial denying him the ability to appear at the high court while his lawyers make the immunity argument.

What did he say?

In upper-case letters, Trump warned his followers that should he not be afforded immunity, future presidents will immediately be indicted upon leaving office by the opposite party.

"IF IMMUNITY IS NOT GRANTED TO A PRESIDENT, EVERY PRESIDENT THAT LEAVES OFFICE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Saturday morning, just days before the high court is expected to hear arguments.



Donald Trump Truth Social 09:36 AM EST 04/20/24

— Donald J. Trump Posts From His Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) April 20, 2024

The Hill noted:

More than a dozen retired four-star generals, admirals and other former military leaders filed a Supreme Court amicus brief earlier this month in which they stated their opposition to the former president’s immunity claims in criminal cases.

"The notion of such immunity, both as a general matter, and also specifically in the context of the potential negation of election results, threatens to jeopardize our nation’s security and international leadership," the amicus brief stated. "Particularly in times like the present, when anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes are on the rise worldwide, such a threat is intolerable and dangerous."

Witch hunt

Trump and his allies -- and millions of supporters -- have argued that such attempts to quash his immunity claims are simply part of the political witch hunt against him, meant to hamstring his 2024 presidential campaign and prevent him from winning the White House.

The former president and his lawyers are leaning heavily on the immunity defense, which would render most of his criminal charges moot.

Some legal experts believe he'll be afforded full or partial immunity, but others believe his lawyers will have a difficult time pursuading the high court to make that decision.

Only time will tell.

President Joe Biden's campaign in 2020 ran on bringing "decency" back to the White House. So much for that idea. 

According to Fox News, it was recently revealed by Politico that several of President Joe Biden's aides have a rather disgusting nickname for former President Donald Trump.

"Hitler Pig."

The outlet reported that the nasty nickname came about after Trump had invited Nick Fuentes to Mar-a-Lago for dinner. The name is used by Biden's "generally younger, more digitally native" aides, the outlet noted.

Sources confirm

Politico's West Wing Playbook confirmed via four sources from inside the White House that Trump is referred to a "Hitler Pig" by some of the aides and staffers.

"According to the four people who were granted anonymity to speak to West Wing Playbook about the term’s usage in Biden world, it started in late 2022 after Trump invited Nick Fuentes, an avowed white nationalist and Holocaust denier, to dinner at Mar-a-Lago along with the rapper Kanye West," the report read.

The outlet noted that the sources explained why they believe the nickname for Trump is used around the White House.

"Calling Trump ‘Hitler Pig’ is not so much an attempt to inject some levity into private conversations as it is a way to characterize what Biden aides see as one of Trump’s most outrageous behavior patterns, the four people all said," the report said.

Biden campaigned on bringing back “decency” and “turning down the temperature” in politics. Yet his aides call Trump ‘Hitler Pig’ & Biden weaponizes the justice system against his leading political opponent.

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) April 19, 2024

While it wasn't confirmed that the president himself uses the name, other reports indicated that Biden often uses profane language to refer to his predecessor.

Social media reacts

Users across social media torched Biden and the White House for allowing such a nasty and inappropriate name to be used around the White House.

"Only the best of the best in our administration. What happened to, 'if I see or hear you treat anyone with disrespect, I will fire you on the spot,'" one X user wrote.

Another X user wrote, "The staff of the great "uniter" again show their true colors. So tolerant."

Only time will tell if anyone in charge at the White House responds to the report and how they'll try to spin it if they actually do.

A prospective juror who had told the court she was unbiased in former President Donald Trump's criminal trial admitted during a recent interview that she is actually "not a fan" of Donald Trump, and then started listing various reasons for why the former president made her "angry."

That doesn't sound "unbiased" to me.

After the juror was reportedly dismissed because of scheduling conflicts with the case, she gave an interview to press outside.

One of the reporters asked her to explain how she felt about the former president.

That's when the prospective juror stated that she was "not a fan."

"During COVID-19 I live with someone who is immunocompromised, and I think his handling of COVID-19 was abysmal," she said without providing any further details.

She also claimed that she has an adopted sister from China who feels "very anxious" about the comments that Donald Trump has made about China.

"It made her very anxious and therefore made me angry," she said, before saying she disagrees with Donald's perspectives on "women and reproductive health."

"And I think that all of that needs to be addressed," she said.

THIS is the type of person that qualifies as "unbiased."

It might just take a miracle to ensure that Donald Trump gets a fair trial in New York.

"This prospective Trump juror was dismissed because of scheduling conflicts but told the court she could remain unbiased. Here she admits she’s 'not a fan' of the President. If Trump gets a fair trial in New York it will require a not insignificant miracle," said conservative Charlie Kirk.

It's going to be VERY tough for Donald Trump to get a fair trial, and that was probably the goal of the people attacking him all along.

America's liberal elite who are going after Trump aren't REALLY interested in stuff like truth, honesty, and justice, they are only out from themselves.

They see Donald Trump as an obstacle between them and their goals, and it seems as though they're willing to do anything to stack the deck against Trump's quest to take back the White House.

This is one of the prospective jurors who assured us she could be unbiased in the Trump trial.

She was dismissed due to scheduling conflicts. But she said this, while also assuring the court that she could have remained objective and unbiased.

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) April 17, 2024

What do you think about this story?

Let us know your opinions in the discussion section below!

The Biden administration has been caught deleting e-mails in violation of record-keeping law, even as the Justice Department continues its prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admitted that it regularly destroys former employees' emails within 30 days, according to America First Legal (AFL), a conservative nonprofit founded by Trump adviser Stephen Miller.

America First Legal sued the Biden administration's archivist Colleen Shogan, who runs the National Archives (NARA), and Xavier Beccera, who runs Health and Human Services.

Biden caught deleting emails

America First Legal filed a records request under the Freedom of Information Act for a CDC booklet titled, “LGBTQ Inclusivity in Schools: A Self-Assessment Tool.”

The request led the CDC to disclose that it routinely deletes e-mails as soon as 30 days after employees leave the agency. As a result, America First Legal was unable to get the records it was seeking.

America First Legal complained to the National Archives and Records Agency (NARA), which found that CDC did not violate the Federal Records Act.

The CDC "does not require the preservation of all emails but rather preserves all records from email accounts," NARA found.

Individual CDC employees may retain or delete emails "based on the email’s content value and its applicability to a NARA-approved records schedule."

But those findings are inconsistent with NARA's records schedule, which requires all e-mails from low-level staff to be kept for at least 3 years, America First Legal said.

Double standard

America First Legal accused NARA of bending the Federal Records Act to accommodate the CDC after it was caught red handed.

NARA is the same agency that triggered the classified documents probe into Donald Trump with a Justice Department referral.

"The rule of law cannot mean one set of rules for unelected bureaucrats and another for democratically-elected officials who happen to be a political challenger to the sitting President,” said Dan Epstein, America First Legal's Vice President.

The CDC exercised enormous influence over the lives of Americans during COVID, and the agency is continuing to move a radical race and gender agenda, despite the fact that no Americans ever voted for a single CDC employee.

By deleting its paper trail, the CDC is showing that it is not accountable to the people. It won't follow the same standards, the same laws, that everyone else (except them and their Washington buddies) must follow.

In a nutshell, this is why Americans continue to support Trump. The self-appointed champions of "our democracy" are nothing but bureaucratic tyrants.

Donald Trump shared some sad news on Monday, telling reporters that it "looks like" he will miss his son Barron's graduation because of the liberal judge in his "hush money" trial. 

Trump's statement led to an outpouring of sympathy for the Trump family, and a media frenzy as liberal news outlets accused Trump of lying.

The judge, Juan Merchan, has deferred a decision on whether Trump can skip court for Barron's big day.

While nothing is official yet, the judge has left the door open to Trump missing Barron's graduation if the trial is behind schedule.

Trump shares Barron news

The Barron intrigue is not the only family drama surrounding the case.

Trump has criticized the judge for refusing to step aside over his daughter's work for prominent Democrats, including Joe Biden.

The judge also donated to Biden in 2020, breaking legal norms in the process. Trump has labeled the judge "evil," and the Republican presidential candidate is certain to leverage any opportunity to paint the judge as capricious and vindictive.

The judge has warned that Trump could be jailed if he skips the proceedings at any point during the trial, which could last six weeks. Barron's graduation is on May 17. Merchan has already ruled Trump can't attend Supreme Court arguments in his immunity case, but the judge appears somewhat sensitive to the poor optics of forcing Trump to miss an important milestone for his child.

"It really depends on how we are doing on time and where we are in the trial," the judge said.

Will judge separate father and son?

Trump has made no secret of the fact that Barron makes him a proud father. The 18-year-old bears a striking resemblance to his dad and has impressed many with his incredible stature.

"It looks like the judge will not let me go to the graduation of my son who's worked very, very hard and he is a great student," Trump said Monday.

"He's a great student and he's very proud of the fact [that] he did so well and was looking forward for years to having his graduation with his mother and father there."

"It looks like the judge isn't going to allow me to escape the scam. This is a scam trial," Trump added.

Some have encouraged Trump to call the judge's "bluff" and attend the graduation anyway.

The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of a prominent Black Lives Matter activist who organized a riot that led to a police officer being seriously injured in 2016.

Police officer "John Doe" suffered brain injury and lost teeth when an unidentified BLM rioter threw a "rock-like object" at him as unrest swept Baton Rouge, Louisiana, following the death of Alton Sterling in police custody.

Activist Deray McKesson, who organized the riot, argues he is shielded from liability by the First Amendment. But the injured officer says McKesson could have foreseen the violent consequences when he led activists to block a highway.

BLM activist LOSES

McKesson should have anticipated that his efforts would result in violence given the "pattern" of Black Lives Matter protests developing into violent confrontations with cops, John Doe's lawyers said.

"The pattern was set: out-of-state protesters representing BLM fly into a town, gather, block a highway, engage and entice police, loot, damage property, injure bystanders, injure police," they wrote.

"By July 9, 2016, when McKesson organized the Baton Rouge protest/riot—he had no reason to expect a different outcome—police will be injured."

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected McKesson's argument, finding he incited violence by "organiz[ing] and direct[ing] a protest… such that it was likely that a violent confrontation with the police would result."

The Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit against McKesson to move forward without any explanation.

Lefties cry "free speech"

Conservatives have long argued that the 2020 George Floyd riots led to few if any consequences for serious lawbreakers like the rioters who besieged a federal courthouse in Portland.

The Supreme Court's decision to let McKesson face liability is therefore a surprising setback for an activist movement that has been, in the eyes of many, permitted to engage in political violence in the name of free speech.

The far-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) blasted the court's decision as a threat to "classic First-Amendment-protected activity nationwide."

In a separate matter implicating the right to protest, the Supreme Court appeared skeptical Tuesday of the Justice Department's sweeping prosecution of hundreds of January 6th participants who have been charged with "obstruction of an official proceeding."

The court's conservatives showed concern about the statute being stretched to squelch legitimate First Amendment activity.

A bombshell study from a pro-gun group found that so-called "high-capacity magazines," often defined by liberals as magazines with more than 10 rounds, are extremely common despite the efforts of Joe Biden to demonize them. 

In fact, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) discovered that Americans collectively own 700 million magazines with a greater capacity than 10 rounds. 

Biden crushed by gun study

Biden's extreme anti-gun rhetoric, especially his comments about the futility of an American militia against a standing army, have not helped calm the nerves of millions of Americans who see gun ownership as the last defense against tyranny.

But Biden has a tall task indeed if he wants to get Americans to forfeit their firearms.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) found that 46 percent of detachable magazines owned by Americans are rifle magazines with a capacity of over 30 rounds.

The findings are a stinging rebuke of Biden's alarmist gun rhetoric, which often paints "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines as dangerous and unusual "weapons of war."

“The data establishes that law-abiding gun owners overwhelming choose magazines that have a capacity to hold more than ten rounds for lawful purposes including self-defense, target shooting and hunting,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel.

Gun crackdown continues

Biden has struggled to push his agenda against a wave of pro-gun court rulings that have been handed down since a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2022 upholding the Second Amendment.

A judge in Washington state last week rejected a ban on high-capacity magazines as unconstitutional, in just the latest setback for gun control.

Biden also has limited power to pass gun control through a divided Congress, which has led him to leverage the bully pulpit and the executive pen as much as possible.

Last week, Biden issued a sweeping executive order cracking down on gun sellers with more expansive background checks.

"I've spent hours with families who've lost loved ones to gun violence. They all have the same message: 'Do something,'" he said. "Today, my Administration is taking action to make sure fewer guns are sold without background checks," Biden added.

Ironically, Biden's own son is facing criminal charges for lying about his drug use to purchase a pistol.

A federal judge denied Hunter Biden's request to drop the case last week.

Iran stunned the entire world over the weekend after it fired a massive barrage of missiles and suicide drones against Israel. 

Glory be to God, the attack was nearly 100% thwarted by the quick reaction and advanced anti-missile tech deployed by Israel, the United States and several powerful allies in the region.

Not surprisingly, even in the wake of the attack, Iranian diplomats have issued multiple warnings to the United States to stay out of the conflict, and many believe President Joe Biden is a weak enough leader to do just that.

Many believe Biden's overall weakness regarding his handling of the Israel-Hamas war is what might have triggered Iran's bold attack over the weekend.

What's happening?

An Iranian diplomate from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations warned the United States to steer clear of the developing conflict between Iran and Israel.

The issue is that Iran believes its insanely large attack on Israel was an appropriate, "legitimate defense"  to an "alleged Israeli strike on April 1 in Damascus, Syria which struck near the Iranian embassy and killed two senior officers in Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)."

The Iranian diplomates took to X to post an update on the status of the attack and why it launched it.

"Conducted on the strength of Article 51 of the UN Charter pertaining to legitimate defense, Iran’s military action was in response to the Zionist regime’s aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus," they wrote.

Conducted on the strength of Article 51 of the UN Charter pertaining to legitimate defense, Iran’s military action was in response to the Zionist regime’s aggression against our diplomatic premises in Damascus. The matter can be deemed concluded. However, should the Israeli…

— Permanent Mission of I.R.Iran to UN, NY (@Iran_UN) April 13, 2024

The Iranian diplomats then issued a dire warning to the White House, telling it to back down and stay out of the way... or else.

The warning

Iran believes that the conflict with Israel is "concluded" now that it struck back with hundreds of missiles and drones. In other words, they believe everything is even-steven.

Because of that belief, which according to most opinions is most certainly false, Iran made clear that the United States should not be involved whatsoever.

"The matter can be deemed concluded," the Iranian diplomats said in the post. "However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe. It is a conflict between Iran and the rogue Israeli regime, from which the U.S. MUST STAY AWAY!"

Biden once again finds himself in a political pickle, as many believe he should do whatever it takes to assist in Israel's defense, including a counteroffensive, and the other side believes he should follow Iran's orders and do nothing at all. Only time will tell which direction the White House takes on the scary situation.

An Iowa Supreme Court justice found himself in quite an awkward situation regarding an upcoming divorce case. 

According to QCTimes, Iowa Supreme Court Justice Christopher McDonald recused himself from an upcoming divorce case given his prior extramarital involvement with the woman involved in the case.

The case made it to the state's high court after the husband filed an appeal to his wife's divorce terms.

John Mordini appealed a lower court's ruling regarding the divorce terms filed by Nikki Mordini.

What's going on?

John Mordini's appeal reached the state's Iowa Court of Appeals after appealing a district court's decision from earlier this month.

The outlet noted:

In the motion asking for the recusal, which was filed the same day as the appeal, John Mordini stated McDonald and Nikki Mordini, an immigration and family law attorney, were involved in an affair during the time of the marriage.

In the motion, Mordini wrote that the affair "had a significant negative impact on the marriage and ultimately contributed to the breakdown in the bonds of matrimony."

Additionally, the motion pointed out that Nikki Mordini met with McDonald last summer after filing for the divorce, revealing at the time that John Mordini knew about their extramarital affair. The motion argued that as a result, a recusal was necessary.

"It would be impossible for the appellant to believe he would be given fair consideration by Justice McDonald given the aforementioned facts and events," the motion read.

For his part, the Iowa Supreme Court justice filed a motion immediately afterward, recusing himself from the case. He filed an updated "amended" version of the motion to recuse himself several days later.

Additional details

There weren't many additional details regarding his amended motion that granted his recusal, other than to note that it was based on a relationship with Nikki Mordini "that occurred more than a decade ago."

A spokesperson for the Iowa Judicial Branch noted that the justice couldn't provide further comment, citing "the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct," which prevents further discussion of pending cases.

McDonald was appointed by Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds in 2019. He previously served on the state's appeals court.

He was divorced in 2009, and has three children, according to the outlet.

The Senate voted to overturn a Biden climate regulation on Wednesday that is already facing pushback from federal courts.

The Federal Highway Administration rule requires states to set targets for lowering greenhouse gas emissions on highways. A resolution to overturn the regulation passed 53-47 on Wednesday after two different federal courts found Biden overstepped his authority.

The Senate vote was backed by two vulnerable Democratic senators, Sherrod Brown (Oh.) and Jon Tester (Mt.), as well as Joe Manchin (D-Wv.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Az.), who are not seeking re-election this year.

Senate challenges Biden climate rule

The White House vowed a swift veto if the resolution passes the House, calling Biden's highway rule “a common-sense, good-government tool for transparently managing transportation-related GHG emissions and informing transportation investment decisions."

The lead sponsor of the resolution, Kevin Cramer (R-Nd.), called Biden's regulation "arrogance on steroids."

"The Biden administration should have never introduced this rule. But now we, the policymaking branch of government, must end it. I urge all my colleagues to stand up for the Senate and vote for this restoration of Article One powers."

The regulation was similarly criticized by Manchin as intrusive and part of an "unworkable, one-size-fits-all approach."

"In places where traffic congestion is scarce and emissions are already low, it’s functionally impossible to meet these targets without devastating impacts to our economy," he said.

"The only way to do it would be to simply stop people from driving on highways."

Federal courts push back

The vote comes after two different federal judges appointed by President Trump found that Biden was pushing the limits of his own infrastructure law.

“If the people, through Congress, believe that the states should spend the time and money necessary to measure and report GHG emissions and set declining emission targets, they may do so by amending Section 150 or passing a new law," said Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

"But an agency cannot make this decision for the people."

Biden's efforts to impose a climate agenda by executive fiat have faced regular pushback from courts and a cool reception from the American public, which has been slow to embrace electric vehicles despite an aggressive federal push.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts