Daily Archives: February 5, 2024

Former President Donald J. Trump, in an interview that aired on Fox News on Sunday, suggested falsely that Latin American governments were picking the citizens they didnt want and shipping them to the U.S. border, resurrecting a claim that was central to his 2016 campaign.

He also accused the Chinese Communist Party without providing any evidence of orchestrating illegal immigration into the United States, and said he believed China would try to interfere in the presidential election, adding that he liked President Xi Jinping a lot.

Asked on Sunday Morning Futures by the interviewer, Maria Bartiromo, whether he thought military-aged men from China were being directed by the Communist Party to come here, Mr. Trump said: I believe so.

Referring to a recent incident in New York City in which a group of men identified by police officials as migrants from Latin America attacked police officers, Mr. Trump said: The heads of these countries are smart. Theyre not sending the people that are doing a great job and that they love in the country. Theyre sending people, for the most part, that they dont want, and theyre putting them into caravans.

That statement echoed one of the most incendiary lines from his first campaign announcement speech in 2015: When Mexico sends its people, theyre not sending their best, he said at the time, continuing: Theyre bringing drugs. Theyre bringing crime. Theyre rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. He also has repeatedly and falsely said that migrants from South and Central America are coming from mental institutions and jails.

Mr. Trump also spoke approvingly, as he has before, of the military-style mass deportation of Mexican immigrants under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

View original post here:

Trump Pushes Immigration Conspiracy Theories and Mass Deportations - The New York Times

Republican presidential candidate former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks at a campaign event on Thursday, Feb. 1, 2024, in Columbia, S.C. Artie Walker Jr./AP hide caption

Republican presidential candidate former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks at a campaign event on Thursday, Feb. 1, 2024, in Columbia, S.C.

Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley has made a cameo appearance on NBC's Saturday Night Live, making jibes at former President Donald Trump over his age and mental competency.

The former South Carolina governor has been campaigning ahead of her home state's Republican primary later this month in an effort to close the gap in polling between herself and Trump.

Haley appeared in a comedy sketch set at a fake CNN Town Hall, where Trump, played by cast member James Austin Johnson, was being asked questions by an audience.

Making an unannounced appearance, Haley was introduced halfway through the sketch as "someone who describes herself as a concerned South Carolina voter." Haley then asks, "My question is, why won't you debate Nikki Haley?"

The fake Trump then replies "Oh, my God, it's her! The woman who was in charge of security on Jan. 6... Nancy Pelosi!" with a nod to Trump's recent seeming confusion over Pelosi and Haley.

"Are you doing OK, Donald? You might need a mental competency test," Haley says.

Haley has pitched herself as a younger, more capable alternative to both Trump and the Democratic frontrunner, President Joe Biden.

Trump tells Haley that he "aced" the competency test and says "They told me I'm 100% mental, and I'm competent because I'm a man."

He adds that women "should never run our economy. Women are terrible with money... in fact, a woman I know recently asked me for $83 million."

A New York civil jury recently awarded writer E. Jean Carroll $83 million in damages from Trump, ruling that the former president had defamed Carroll after she accused him of sexual assault.

A later joke about the 1999 movie The Sixth Sense leads to Trump saying "I see dead people." Haley replies: "Yeah, that's what voters will say if they see you and Joe [Biden] on the ballot."

Haley was also the subject of a barb by guest host Ayo Edebiri, who made fun of the former South Carolina governor for previously avoiding saying that the Civil War was caused by slavery.

"I was just curious, what would you say was the main cause of the Civil War, and do you think it starts with an 's' and ends with a 'lavery?' comic actor Edebiri asks. Haley replies, "Yep, I probably should have said that the first time".

In December at a New Hampshire town hall, Haley was asked what she thought caused the Civil War. She avoided saying "slavery," instead answering that it was about "the freedoms of what people could and couldn't do."

Haley also delivered the NBC show's signature opening line "Live from New York, it's Saturday night!" at the end of the skit.

"Had a blast tonight on SNL," Haley tweeted after her appearance.

"Know it was past Donald's bedtime so looking forward to the stream of unhinged tweets in the a.m."

Continue reading here:

Nikki Haley makes surprise appearance on SNL, mocking Donald Trump and Joe Biden - NPR

Former President Trumps feud with the head of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union has reached a fever pitch since the union endorsed President Biden last week.

The UAW backed Bidens bid for reelection at the unions conference in Washington, D.C., last Wednesday, after previously withholding its endorsement over concerns about the administrations push toward electric vehicles (EVs).

While touting Bidens record on labor, UAW President Shawn Fain also took aim at Trump, slamming the former president as a scab.

Donald Trump is a billionaire, and thats who he represents, Fain said. If Donald Trump ever worked in an auto plant, he wouldnt be a UAW member. Hed be a company man trying to squeeze the American worker. Donald Trump stands against everything we stand for as a union.

This choice is clear, he added. Joe Biden bet on the American worker while Donald Trump blamed the American worker.

Fain hit the former president again just days later in an interview with CBS Newss Face the Nation,” saying Trump has a history of serving himself while Biden has a history of serving others and the working class.

Donald Trump has a history of serving himself and standing for the billionaire class. And thats contrary to everything that working-class people stand for,” Fain said.

The UAW leader has clearly gotten under Trumps skin.

The former president has since blasted Fain as a dope and a stiff, accused him of buying into Bidens vision on EVs and selling the auto industry right into the big, powerful hands of China.

Shawn Fain doesnt understand this or have a clue, Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. Get rid of this dope & vote for DJT. I will bring the Automobile Industry back to our Country.

In an interview with Fox Businesss Maria Bartiromo set to air Sunday, the former president dismissed the UAW as a hopeless case and said he never spoke with the union.

The back-and-forth with Fain comes as both Biden and Trump have turned their attention to Novembers general election. While former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley remains in the GOP primary race, Trump is the clear front-runner for the nomination, particularly after wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Trump’s team has indicated that peeling off even some of Biden’s support among organized labor could make a difference in what is expected to be a close election. The former president lost union members by 8 percentage points in the 2016 election, according to exit polling, and that margin grew to 14 percentage points in 2020.

Trump is also vying to win back Michigan, the home of the U.S. auto industry, after a successful UAW strike against the Big Three automakers. Michigan broke from decades of steady Democratic support to elect Trump in 2016 before Biden flipped the state back in 2020.

While a significant portion of UAW members may vote for Trump anyway, the former president has a steep hill to climb with union brass. Even when courting the UAW’s endorsement last year, Trump claimed rank-and-file members were being “sold down the river” by leadership.

Trump further rankled UAW leadership when he traveled to Detroit to deliver remarks at a nonunion shop during last falls strike.

Biden campaign officials believe the president can strongly contrast his support for the autoworkers and investments during his administration with the closure and relocation of factories during Trumps presidency. Biden also endeared himself to UAW members by becoming the first president to march on a picket line during the union’s strike against General Motors, Ford and Stellantis.

Winning Michigan, one of several swing states that are likely to determine November’s election, will require Biden to build a diverse coalition among union members, Black voters, young voters and other blocs. The president won the state in 2020 by 154,000 votes, but recent polls have shown him trailing Trump there.

Ahead of the state’s Feb. 27 presidential primary, Biden met with UAW members in Warren, Mich., who were phone banking in support of him.

“To me it’s a basic, basic thing, and I mean this sincerely, he said. Wall Street didn’t build the middle class. Labor built the middle class, and the middle class built the country. 

Amid the spat with the UAW, Trump has turned his sights on the Teamsters union, meeting with Teamsters president Sean OBrien on Wednesday. When asked about a potential endorsement from the union, the former president suggested that stranger things have happened. 

However, Fain said Thursday that he cant see any way in hell that Trump would get a union endorsement.

Im not gonna try to answer for Sean OBrien, but I would 100 percent bet that I cant see any way in hell a union would endorse Donald Trump for president, Fain said. The man stands against everything that working-class people stand for, that organized labor stands for. 

You know, look, they chose to entertain visiting with candidates, and thats a path they chose, he added. I mean, I saw no point in it because I look at the track record of Donald Trump.”

Fain, for his part, appears to be a key piece of the Biden team’s strategy in reaching UAW workers and working-class voters more broadly. The UAW president accompanied Biden on a trip to the Detroit area on Thursday and has been a willing and capable surrogate for the presidents reelection effort.

“We know whos been there for labor, and we sure as hell know who hasnt, Fain told UAW members on Thursday. We’re going to fight like hell, and we’re going to ensure Joe Biden is the next president.”

See the original post:

Trump feud with UAW reaches fever pitch - The Hill

As signs point to the 2024 presidential election being a repeat of the 2020 race between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, Biden holds a lead over Trump 50 - 44 percent among registered voters in a hypothetical general election matchup, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of registered voters released today.

In Quinnipiac University's December 20, 2023 poll, the same hypothetical 2024 general election matchup was 'too close to call' as President Biden received 47 percent support and former President Trump received 46 percent support.

In today's poll, Democrats (96 - 2 percent) and independents (52 - 40 percent) support Biden, while Republicans (91 - 7 percent) support Trump.

The gender gap is widening.

Women 58 - 36 percent support Biden, up from December when it was 53 - 41 percent.

Men 53 - 42 percent support Trump, largely unchanged from December when it was 51 - 41 percent.

In a five-person hypothetical 2024 general election matchup that includes independent and Green Party candidates, Biden receives 39 percent support, Trump receives 37 percent support, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. receives 14 percent support, independent candidate Cornel West receives 3 percent support, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein receives 2 percent support.

Among independents in the five-person hypothetical 2024 general election matchup, Biden receives 35 percent support, Trump receives 27 percent support, Kennedy receives 24 percent support, West receives 5 percent support, and Stein receives 5 percent support.

In a hypothetical 2024 general election matchup between President Biden and Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, a former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor, 47 percent of voters support Haley and 42 percent support Biden.

In today's poll, Democrats (87 - 10 percent) support Biden, while Republicans (79 - 4 percent) and independents (53 - 37 percent) support Haley.

In a five-person hypothetical 2024 general election matchup that includes independent and Green Party candidates, Biden receives 36 percent support, Haley receives 29 percent support, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. receives 21 percent support, independent candidate Cornel West receives 3 percent support, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein receives 2 percent support.

Among Republicans in the five-person hypothetical 2024 general election matchup, Biden receives 3 percent support, Haley receives 57 percent support, Kennedy receives 24 percent support, and West receives 1 percent support.

With the 2024 Republican presidential primary now whittled down to two candidates, 77 percent of Republican and Republican leaning voters support Trump and 21 percent support Haley. In December's poll with more candidates in the race, Trump received 67 percent support and Haley received 11 percent support.

In the 2024 Democratic presidential primary, Biden receives 78 percent support among Democratic and Democratic leaning voters, author Marianne Williamson receives 11 percent support, and U.S. Representative from Minnesota Dean Phillips receives 6 percent support.

Voters give President Biden a negative 41 - 55 percent job approval rating. While still deep in the red, it is his highest job approval rating since June 2023.

Voters were asked about Biden's handling of...

More than 8 in 10 voters (84 percent) are either very concerned (41 percent) or somewhat concerned (43 percent) that the United States will be drawn into a military conflict in the Middle East, while 15 percent are either not so concerned (11 percent) or not concerned at all (4 percent).

Given a list of 10 issues and asked which is the most urgent one facing the country today, 24 percent of voters say preserving democracy in the United States, 20 percent say the economy, and 20 percent say immigration.

There are wide gaps by party identification.

Among Republicans, the top issues are immigration (38 percent), the economy (29 percent), and preserving democracy in the United States (12 percent).

Among Democrats, the top issue is preserving democracy in the United States (39 percent) followed by the economy (12 percent), with no other issue reaching double digits.

Among independents, the top issues are preserving democracy in the United States (23 percent), immigration (19 percent), and the economy (18 percent).

A majority of voters (61 percent) consider the situation at the border between the U.S. and Mexico a crisis, while 33 percent think it is a problem but not a crisis, and 4 percent think it is not a problem at all.

There are wide gaps by party identification.

Among Republicans, 82 percent think it is a crisis and 17 percent think it is a problem but not a crisis.

Among Democrats, 43 percent think it is a crisis, 51 percent think it is a problem but not a crisis, and 6 percent think it is not a problem at all.

Among independents, 60 percent think it is a crisis, 35 percent think it is a problem but not a crisis, and 3 percent think it is not a problem at all.

Nearly 6 in 10 voters (59 percent) think U.S. policy on immigration is not strict enough, 20 percent think it is about right, and 15 percent think it is too strict.

Voters are split when it comes to building a wall along the border with Mexico, with 49 percent opposing building a wall and 47 percent supporting it. This compares to a Quinnipiac University national poll in October 2023 when 52 percent supported building a wall along the border with Mexico (an all-time high) and 44 percent opposed it.

Nearly 6 in 10 voters (58 percent) think immigrants from other cultures have a mainly positive impact on American society, while 27 percent think immigrants from other countries have a mainly negative impact, and 14 percent did not offer an opinion.

Thirty-six percent of voters describe the state of the nation's economy these days as either excellent (6 percent) or good (30 percent), while 63 percent describe it as either not so good (29 percent) or poor (34 percent).

This compares to a Quinnipiac University poll in August 2023 when 30 percent of voters described it as either excellent (3 percent) or good (27 percent) and 69 percent described it as either not so good (32 percent) or poor (37 percent).

Asked what they consider is the best measure of how the nation's economy is doing, 46 percent of voters say the prices of goods and services they buy, 19 percent say the unemployment rate and job reports, 15 percent say their personal finances, 9 percent say the housing market, and 5 percent say the stock market index.

1,650 self-identified registered voters nationwide were surveyed from January 25th - 29th with a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points. The survey included 696 Republican and Republican leaning voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points. The survey included 693 Democratic and Democratic leaning voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Doug Schwartz, Ph.D. since 1994, conducts independent, non-partisan national and state polls on politics and issues. Surveys adhere to industry best practices and are based on random samples of adults using random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones.

Visit poll.qu.edu or http://www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll

Email poll@qu.edu or follow us on X (formerly known as Twitter) @QuinnipiacPoll.

Continue reading here:

1/31/24 - 2024 Matchups: Biden Opens Up Lead Over Trump In Head-To-Head, Quinnipiac University National Poll ... - Quinnipiac University Poll

DENVER (AP) In the summer of 2020, Gerard Magliocca, like many during the coronavirus pandemic, found himself stuck inside with time on his hands.

A law professor at Indiana University, Magliocca emailed with another professor, who was writing a book about overlooked parts of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. He decided he would research the history of two long-neglected sentences in the post-Civil War addition that prohibit those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office.

Magliocca posted a copy of his research which he believed was the first law journal article ever written about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment online in mid-December of 2020, then revised and re-posted it on Dec. 29. Eight days later, President Donald Trump's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent the certification of his loss to Joe Biden. Magliocca watched as Republicans such as Sens. Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney described the attack as an insurrection.

That night, Magliocca composed a quick post on a legal blog: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, he wrote, might apply to President Trump.

Just over four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to determine whether it does. On Thursday, the nation's highest court is scheduled to hear arguments over whether Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado, where the state's Supreme Court ruled that he violated Section 3.

It's the first time in history that the nation's highest court has heard a case on Section 3, which was used to keep former Confederates from holding government offices after the amendment's 1868 adoption. It fell into disuse after Congress granted an amnesty to most ex-rebels in 1872.

Before the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, even many constitutional lawyers rarely thought about Section 3, a provision that isn't taught at most law schools and hadn't been used in court for more than 100 years. Legal scholars believe the only time it was cited in the 20th century was to deny a seat in Congress to a socialist on the grounds that he opposed U.S. involvement in World War I.

The clause's revival is due to an unlikely combination of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, all rediscovering 111 words in the nation's foundational legal document that have now become a threat to the former president's attempt to return to office.

THE FIRST TARGETS

Once she had dried her tears after watching rioters storm the Capitol, Norma Anderson sat down with one of the multiple copies of the Constitution she keeps around her house in the Denver suburbs and reread the 14th Amendment.

I made the connection, Anderson, now 91, said in an interview.

Anderson is a former Republican leader of Colorado's General Assembly and state Senate, and eventually would become the lead plaintiff in the case now before the Supreme Court. The evening of Jan. 6, she read the provision that prohibited anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and later engaged in insurrection against it, or provided aid and comfort to its enemies, from holding office.

Anderson didn't yet have the chance to spread the word beyond her own circle, but in the days after Jan. 6, thanks to scholars such as Magliocca and the University of Maryland law professor whose book project had inspired him, Mark Graber, Section 3 started its slow emergence from obscurity.

We were the two people doing a little work on Section 3, Graber said of Magliocca and himself. We thought this is real interesting; it makes great chitchat at the American Legal Historians Society. He added, Then Donald Trump did academics a favor.

Though the provision was occasionally mentioned, conversation in Washington and the legal profession in general remained dominated by Trump's second impeachment where he was acquitted by the Senate after 43 Republicans voted not to convict him.

It took months before the first mention of Section 3 in a public document. Free Speech For People, a Massachusetts-based liberal nonprofit, sent letters to top election officials in all 50 states in June 2021, warning them not to place Trump on the ballot should he run again in 2024 because he had violated the provision.

The group didn't hear back from any of them.

People were just treating it as something that was not serious, recalled John Bonifaz, the group's co-founder.

In January 2022, Free Speech For People filed a complaint in North Carolina to disqualify Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn under Section 3 for his involvement in the rally that preceded the Capitol attack. But Cawthorn lost his primary in that year's midterms, mooting the case.

At the same time, another liberal watchdog group was starting its own Section 3 campaign.

After Jan. 6, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, also known as CREW, in Washington was focused on Trump's impeachment and other possible legal penalties against those who participated in the Capitol attack before exploring other remedies, said its chief counsel, Donald Sherman.

By January 2022, the group decided to test Section 3 in court.

It wasn't just Trump we were focused on, Sherman said in an interview. One thing we've been very careful about is we don't think it's appropriate to pursue outside or longshot cases.

Looking for a lower-level defendant, Sherman's organization zeroed in on Couy Griffin. The subject of one of the earliest Jan. 6 prosecutions, Griffin already has a rich legal record. He was was recorded in a restricted area of the U.S. Capitol as head of a group called Cowboys for Trump. Griffin was convicted of illegally entering the Capitol, but acquitted of engaging in disorderly conduct.

He still served as a commissioner in a rural New Mexico county, which kept CREW's attention on him. On Sept. 6, 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered Griffin removed from his position. It was the first time in more than 100 years an official had been removed under Section 3. Griffin has appealed to the Supreme Court.

CREW prepared to turn to other Section 3 targets. But it quickly became clear Trump would be next. He announced his campaign for president on Nov. 15, 2022.

IS THIS FOR REAL?

Both Free Speech For People and CREW had similar discussions about how to challenge a presidential candidacy. They knew the complaints would have to come at the state level because federal courts have ruled that citizens can't challenge presidential criteria in that venue.

The two groups began scouring state ballot laws, looking for a place that allowed the rapid contesting of a candidacy. CREW settled on Colorado. It had a clear process for a quick challenge in trial court that would be fast-tracked on appeal to the state Supreme Court.

After a brief trip to Denver checking on potential local lawyers to lead the challenge, Sherman and another CREW attorney, Nikhel Sus, contracted Martha Tierney, a veteran election lawyer who also served as general counsel of the state Democratic Party.

Hmm, that's a longshot, Tierney recalled thinking. She signed up, anyway.

Tierney wasn't acting as the Democratic Party's lawyer, but CREW wanted to balance its team with someone from the right. Sherman reached out to Mario Nicolais, a former Republican election lawyer who had left the party over Trump.

Nicolais' first interaction with Sherman was a direct message about the case on X, the social media network previously known as Twitter. Nicolais thought it could be from a crank.

Is this for real or is this from somebody just angry at the president? Nicolais recalled wondering.

Then he saw Sherman was with CREW. an organization he considered serious. In Nicolais' office hangs a copy of his first appearance on the front page of The Denver Post, when he beat CREW's local chapter in a case before the Colorado Supreme Court.

Nicolais was in charge of recruiting plaintiffs. The attorneys wanted Republicans and independents, not only because they were eligible to vote in Colorado's Republican primary but also to keep the case from being seen as partisan. Anderson, the former state lawmaker, signed on right away.

On Sept. 6, 2023 one year from the disqualification of the New Mexico county commissioner Anderson's was the lead name of the six plaintiffs on the 105-page complaint filed in district court in Denver.

A HISTORIC RULING

Scott Gessler got the call from Trump's team that day. A former Colorado secretary of state, Gessler was one of the go-to Republican election lawyers in the state.

Trump's campaign had been fending off scores of Section 3 lawsuits across the country, often from fringe players such as John Castro, a write-in Republican presidential candidate from Texas who had filed numerous ones against Trump.

This case was more serious. The Denver judge who got CREW's complaint, Sarah Block Wallace, said she was obligated to hold a hearing under Colorado election law.

In the five-day hearing, which took place in late October and early November, two officers who defended the Capitol testified, along with a University of California professor who was an expert in right-wing extremism, two Trump aides and several other witnesses. One was Magliocca, who laid out the history of Section 3.

Trump's attorneys were pessimistic, expecting Wallace, who had a history of donating to Democrats, to rule against them. Trump's top spokesman, Jason Miller, addressed reporters outside court, complaining that the plaintiffs had intentionally filed in a liberal jurisdiction in a blue state.

Trump's lawyers filed a motion asking Wallace step aside because before becoming a judge, she had made a $100 donation to a liberal group that had declared Jan. 6 was an insurrection. She declined.

I will not allow this legal proceeding to turn into a circus, Wallace said as the hearing began.

Testimony was occasionally interrupted by sirens from a fire station around the corner from Wallace's courtroom. Security was an ever-present concern. About a half-dozen sheriffs deputies stood guard throughout the trial, and the plaintiffs had reached out to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

To handle much of the examination and argument, Tierney and Nicolais had brought on a new firm of trial lawyers, whose lead partner was former Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson.

Wallace issued her decision on Nov. 17. She ruled that Trump had engaged in insurrection but found that contrary to Magliocca's testimony it wasn't certain that the authors of the 14th Amendment meant it to apply to the president. Section 3 refers to elector of President and Vice President, but not specifically to the office itself.

Wallace was hesitant to become the first judge in history to bar a top presidential contender from the ballot unless the law was crystal clear.

It was a loss that only a lawyer could love, Sus recalled.

CREW was just a legal sliver away from victory it just needed the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold all of Wallace's ruling besides the technicality of whether the president was covered.

A COURT DIVIDED

The seven justices of the state's high court all appointed by Democrats from a pool chosen by a nonpartisan panel peppered both sides with pointed questions at oral argument three weeks later.

Olson and another partner from his firm, Jason Murray, argued for the plaintiffs. Murray had the rare distinction of having clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court's liberal bloc, and Justice Neil Gorsuch, a member of its conservative bloc.

Gessler handled the argument for Trump. At the end of the grueling session, he addressed the meaning of insurrection and summed up the unprecedented, improvised nature of the case.

Youre going to tell me, Mr. Gessler, youre making it up, Gessler told the justices. Im going to tell you, well, so did the judge. And at the end of the day, we all are to a certain extent.

Neither side left feeling certain of victory.

On Dec. 19, the court announced it would issue its ruling that afternoon. Sean Grimsley, one of Olson's law partners who also had argued the case, was in Washington, at the memorial service for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for whom he had clerked.

The ruling, which was 4-3, came down while Grimsley was on the flight back, frantically checking his phone via the plane's wi-fi. They had won. Grimsley leapt from his seat and dashed back several rows, where he high-fived a fellow O'Connor clerk who was on the flight.

Eight days later, Maine's Democratic secretary of state barred Trump from that state's ballot under Section 3. That decision and Colorado's are on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court rules.

The reaction to Colorado and Maine's decisions has been furious, especially from Republicans. Trump has decried them as election interference and anti-democratic. They have warned that, if they stand, they could open the door to challenges of other politicians under Section 3, including Biden for not sufficiently defending the nation's southern border.

Sherman, who chafes at the notion that his nonpartisan group works on Democrats' behalf, notes that several Republican lawyers, former judges, members of Congress and governors have filed briefs with the Supreme Court backing them. In contrast, Sherman said he has heard grumbling from Democrats that the case risks replacing Trump with a Republican who would be harder to beat in this year's election.

Free Speech For People has filed Section 3 cases against Trump in five states. None has succeeded, with every legal entity ruling that it doesn't have the authority to decide whether to remove Trump from the ballot. The Minnesota Supreme Court, for example, kept Trump on that state's ballot by ruling that state law allows political parties to put whomever they want on their primary ballot.

With most jurisdictions dodging the questions at the heart of the case, it can create a misleading impression that things have gone well for the former president.

The cases have gone poorly for Trump, Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor who has followed the cases closely, wrote Friday in a blog post. He lost on the merits in the only two jurisdictions that got to the merits, Colorado and Maine.

Next up is the one that matters most.

View post:

Here's how 2 sentences in the Constitution rose from obscurity to ensnare Donald Trump - Yahoo News

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) blasted House Republicans on Sunday for being “wholly owned subsidiaries of Donald Trump.”

Jeffries discussed the bipartisan Senate negotiations that have been underway since late last year in the hopes of reaching an agreement on border security on ABC’s “This Week.” He told co-host George Stephanopoulos that a potential proposal by the Senate should not be “dead on arrival” in the House before lawmakers even review the text, which has not been released yet.

“How can a bill be dead on arrival and extreme MAGA Republicans in the House haven’t even seen the text? They don’t even know what solutions are being proposed in terms of addressing the challenges at the border,” Jeffries said.

“House Republicans at this point are wholly owned subsidiaries of Donald Trump. They’re not working to find real solutions for the American people. They are following orders from the former president,” he said.

Former President Trump has been railing against bipartisan negotiations on the border for weeks, saying that additional legislation on the border is unnecessary. However, many Republican lawmakers have emphasized that Trump has no role in border negotiations.

Trump has also been accused of wanting to sink the border negotiations to help boost his chances in the 2024 election. He has since denied that claim, saying that he would not be opposed to a “great” bill that would solve the “problem.”

Jeffries was likely referring to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who last month said any potential Senate deal on the border would be “dead on arrival” in the House.

Jeffries continued to take aim at House Republicans for following the former president’s direction in his interview on Sunday.

“That’s the height of irresponsibility. That’s what the American people dislike about Washington, D.C., at this moment,” Jeffries added.

View post:

Jeffries on House Republicans: Wholly owned subsidiaries of Donald Trump - The Hill