Trump

When the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from the state's GOP presidential primary ballot, Trump and his lawyers angrily vowed to appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What the High Court will ultimately decide if it agrees to take the case remains to be seen. Trump's allies are arguing that it's undemocratic for the courts to play a role in the outcome of the 2024 presidential election —a subject that Princeton University politics professor Jan-Werner Müller tackles in an op-ed published by The Guardian on December 21.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, that Trump is ineligible for the state ballot based on Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment — which states that an "officer" who has engaged in "insurrection" is not eligible to run for public office.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Müller believes that the Colorado Supreme Court's decision was well-reasoned and addresses claims that the justices are trying to impede democracy.

"Three factors can mitigate anxieties about undemocratic measures to save democracy…. One is that, before a drastic decision like disqualification is taken, an individual has to exhibit a very consistent pattern of wanting to undermine democracy," Müller writes. "Check, for Trump. Second, there has to be some room for political judgment and prudence. Disqualification is not automatic and not for life; in theory, Congress could pass an amnesty for Trump in the name of democratic competition."

Müller continues, "Third, banning a whole party can rightly make citizens with particular political preferences feel that their voices are silenced; in this case, though, no one is removing the Republican Party. And, of course, two Trump epigones remain on the ballot."

READ MORE: Majority of Americans support removing Trump from Colorado ballot

Jan-Werner Müller's full op-ed for The Guardian is available at this link.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue of Donald Trump’s claim of “absolute” presidential immunity immediately, so his Washington, D.C. election subversion case can continue – or end.

“The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this Court. The charges here are of the utmost gravity,” Smith in his new filing, CNN reports.

The Special Counsel is counting on the nation’s highest court to rule quickly, pointing to its decision a half-century ago in another caae against another president, Richard Nixon.

“Here, the stakes are at least as high, if not higher: the resolution of the question presented is pivotal to whether the former President himself will stand trial – which is scheduled to begin less than three months in the future,” Smith wrote.

The question the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve is: “Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”

READ MORE: Majority of Americans Support Removing Trump from Colorado Ballot

Trump has been claiming he cannot be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he lost because he was president at the time and therefore has immunity, a claim legal experts have deemed false. He is also asking the U.S. Supreme Court to not address the issue, and allow an appeals court to rule on it first, a request experts say is an attempt to delay his trial.

Judge Tanya Chutkan has already ruled Trump does not have immunity, but agreed that once the ex-president appealed her decision, the trial was no longer under her control, and had to be paused.

In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the U.S. v. Nixon case to “leapfrog” over the appellate court.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, appointed by Nixon, in his majority opinion wrote there was not “an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.”

Revenge and grievance have been prominent themes of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. During a March 4 rally in Maryland, the former president told supporters, "I am your retribution" — and he has repeatedly painted his legal problems as attacks on Americans who plan to vote for him.

Under the Project 2025 agenda that Trump's allies are pushing, the United States' federal government — from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — would be purged of anyone who isn't a total Trump loyalist. Trump's critics view Project 2025 as a blueprint for authoritarianism.

In an essay/op-ed published on December 21, the New York Times' Thomas B. Edsall interviews some major legal experts and describes the type of damage that Trump could cause during a second term if he wins the 2024 election and successfully carries out the Project 2025 agenda.

POLL:Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe told Edsall, "There is little doubt that Donald Trump could impose authoritarian policies that endanger dissent, erase the requirements that ensure at least a modicum of the consent of the governed, and are downright dictatorial while acting entirely within the literal scope of the law, although, needless to say, in flagrant defiance of its spirit. Neither the Constitution's text nor the language of the federal statutes and regulations in force create guardrails that Trump would need to crash through in a way that courts hewing to the text would feel an obligation to prevent or to redress."

During Trump's four years in the White House, he clashed with U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions as well as with someone who later held that position: Bill Barr, who pushed back against his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

But Jack Balkin, a law professor at Yale University in Connecticut, fears that the DOJ could be much more "obedient" during a second Trump presidency.

Balkin told Edsall, "A president giving orders to an obedient Justice Department can exact revenge on political enemies and chill political opposition. It is not even necessary to send anyone to prison. For many people and organizations, the costs of defending a criminal investigation and prosecution can be ruinous and a sufficient deterrent."

READ MORE: George Conway tears apart 'logically weak' dissents in Colorado Supreme Court's Trump ruling

Balkin added, "Moreover, if the public merely believed that the president was using the intelligence services and the IRS to investigate political opponents, this could also chill opposition."

READ MORE: Expert warns Trump’s plan to pack government with allies will have 'nasty consequences'

Thomas Edsall's full New York Times essay/op-ed is available at this link (subscription required).

During a Wednesday night conversation with MSNBC's Chris Hayes, ex-Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele and Protect Democracy writer and editor Amanda Carpenter weighed the consequences of Donald Trump's Colorado case saying he's disqualified from running for office, and his DC case, which will determine whether he's immune from prosecution. Both cases are set to go to the US Supreme Court in the coming weeks.

Hayes points out that the "biggest thing" he's seen "people arguing about" as Trump's US Supreme Court legal battles mounts, are the "political ramifications" of it all. "What does this do to the country? What does it do to politics? What does it do to legitimacy? he asked Carpenter.

"Well, my impression is that we are gonna have more questions than just this case more broadly about the rule of law," she said. "I mean, the reason we are here is not because Americans say, 'oh, we have kings in our country, we are okay with dictatorship, Donald Trump could do whatever he want.' That is not what has happened at all. The only people failing to hold Trump accountable so far are members of the elite and the Republican Party, either through the impeachment process or the unfolding Republican primary process."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

She continued, "The American people rejected him [when it came to] re-electing him as president in 2020. But put that aside — now we are testing questions of legal accountability. And people absolutely have right to ask that question, 'Courts, hey, does the 14th amendment mean actually what it says? Could the court decide that?' So the only thing we should be really worried about in terms of the politics is are we going to resolve these questions quickly before the elections, so that Americans can have full knowledge whether Trump was involved in an insurrection and should be disqualified from office. But more broadly, I think the more important question, legally, is being posed right now by [special counsel] Jack Smith and whether Donald Trump as a president is immune from the law or not."

Hayes asked Steele, "Michael, what do you think?"

The former RNC chair said, "I agree with that analysis. I think it's spot on. This is exactly where we are. So, I want to take what Amanda just said and just move it out a bit further because that is the sweet spot of the argument. now, let's deal with the ugly underbelly of the argument." Because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how this plays out. there is a narrative that has been set in motion around Donald Trump, that regardless of outcomes, circumstances, or situations, the endgame is the same, to empower him, and to empower this movement that is enabling him, that will not hold him accountable for anything. So, while the court is swinging, and thinking, and moving, and in some cases, as we've seen, in some of the issues related to his free speech rights as a candidate, bending over backwards and trying to stay consistent with the constitutional norms and the rule of law, you have at end, within the Republican party itself, among activists around the country, a general consensus that this is all about Trump, and we will be there to make it realizable for him. Whether he is rejected by the American people or not, the narrative stays the same for them.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Ex-RNC chair explains 'ugly underbelly' of Trump legal battle 'political ramifications'youtu.be

READ MORE: 'Clearing up their calendars': Expert predicts 'lightening fast' timeline in Trump's SCOTUS showdown

President Joe Biden's 2024 campaign has released one of their "most aggressive efforts" yet against his opponent, ex-President Donald Trump, Axios reports.

The president's campaign shared a graphic via X (formerly Twitter) Wednesday illustrating the ways Trump compares to Adolf Hitler, with the caption that read, "This is not a coincidence."

The graphic compares the MAGA hopeful's rhetoric side-by-side to Hitler's, such as, when Trump said: 'We will root out' my political opponents 'like vermin' within our country — he echoed Hitler's words: "'Jews' are 'vermin' and 'pests' that must be 'exterminated.'" and 'Immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our county.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Another example the Biden-Harris campaign provided includes when Trump said "'Immigrants' are 'poisoning the blood of our country,'" he echoed Hitler's claim that "'Contamination of the blood' by 'an inferior race' will lead to the fall of Germany."

Several experts and Republican leaders who were once in support of Trump, including former New Jersey governor and 2024 hopeful Chris Christie, and ex-Attorney General Bill Barr, have blasted the MAGA hopeful's "racist" rhetoric, according to CNN.

Axios notes, "Biden denounced Trump's remarks on immigrants during an event in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, saying: 'I don't believe, as the president — former President said again yesterday, that immigrants are polluting our blood."

Trump defended his words, the report notes, telling the audience at an Iowa rally Tuesday that he used his words "in a much different way" than Hitler, claiming he'd "'never read' Hitler's treatise, Mein Kampf."

READ MORE: Trump’s 'poisoning the US blood' rhetoric echoes fascist propaganda of the 1930s: columnist

Axios' full report is here.

As Donald Trump's legal troubles continue to pile going into 2024, the former president has several cases making their way to the US Supreme Court. University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck, during a Wednesday CNN interview, laid out just how quickly the cases could move.

"As you've been looking at the court, and how they seem to be responding here, do you have any indication — I guess there's two parts to this — is there any question that they are going to take up these issues?" CNN's Erin Burnett asked. "The Colorado case and the immunity issue on January 6 — Jack Smith's situation that Trump's trying to stall right now. And how quickly could these decisions actually occur?"

Vladeck replied, "Sure, I mean, Erin, the first question is easier one — no. I think no matter what, both the immunity question and the Section 3 disqualification question are going to be resolved by the US Supreme Court, certainly between now and June. I think the question is how much faster. And with the US Supreme Court, we could hear from the justices as early as the end of this week, that they're gonna either either take up Jack Smith's expedited appeal in that case, or that they're gonna let the federal appeals court go first. Argument in the federal appeals court is tentatively scheduled for January 9, so that's still pretty quick."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

He continued, "The supreme court, even if it doesn't step in now could presumably hear that case by the end of January, early February. You know, the Colorado case, Erin, is a bit trickier, because the Colorado Supreme Court stayed its own ruling, and that stay means that Trump's name will be on the ballot so long as he files his appeal in the Supreme Court by January 4. I think the US Supreme Court might take a little bit more time with that case. But a little bit more time just means January or February for the oral argument for the decision by March. Erin, by the Supreme Court's standards, that is lightening fast. And I think we've already seen a couple of very small signs that the justices are clearing up their calendars and making provisions to move pretty quickly on both of these cases once they're fully ready to go."

Watch the video below or at this link.

Expert predicts 'lightening fast' timeline in Trump's SCOTUS showdownyoutu.be

READ MORE: 'Like a fire feeds on oxygen': Bill Barr suggests Colorado court’s ruling a 'grievance that helps' Trump

Former US attorney general under Donald Trump, Bill Barr, shared his thoughts on the Colorado Supreme Court's Tuesday, December 19 ruling, which will not go to the US Supreme Court. The court determined that Trump is unqualified from running for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which state's an "officer" who incites an insurrection cannot run for federal office.

Trump asked the high court on Wednesday to reject special counsel Jack Smith's request to expedite its decision on whether Trump is immune from prosecution.

CNN's Jake Tapper asked Barr for his "initial reaction" to the Colorado court's ruling, which many critics have praised.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

"As you know, I strongly oppose Donald Trump for the Republican nomination," Barr said. "But I think this case is legally wrong and untenable. And I think this kind of action of stretching the law and taking hyper aggressive positions to knock trump out of the race, they are counterproductive — they backfire. As you know, he feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen, this is gonna end up as a grievance that helps him."

Tapper noted, "The Colorado Supreme Court made its ruling based in part on the district court in Denver. The district court found Trump did engage in insurrection and this is what they said: 'Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification. When the violence began, he took no effective action, disregarded repeated calls to intervene, and pressured colleagues to delay the certification. The court finds that the language Trump used throughout January 6, 2021was likely to incite imminent violence and therefore petitioners have established that Trump engaged in insurrection through incitement and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump speech.' Beyond the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, do you disagree with any of that?"

The former AG replied, "I disagree with the court's ability to make those findings. The core finding here is the denial of due process. To deprive somebody of the right to hold public office requires due process. It requires an adjudication of two core issues. One, was there an insurrection? Did the public disturbance rise to the level of insurrection? And Second, what was the role of the individual in there? What is engagement? Did they do something to break your oath of office? Those are complicated facts, and this was denied due process. It was a five-day hearing, there was no jury, it was before for the judge. They are not able to subpoena witnesses and compel the attendance of witnesses. They relied on the January 6th hearings which is mostly hearsay. There was no right to cross-examine during those hearings, and so forth. By the way, the three Democratic judges that dissented, their opinions I think are masterful. As they said the process here was procedural Frankenstein."

The CNN host then said, "So,I'm sure that if your friend Liz Cheney were here, she would say the January 6th hearings was not mostly hearsay, it was mostly witness testimony. But beyond that, let me ask you first of all, as a DC legal hand, how do you think US Supreme Court is gonna go with this? Will they take it up and rule against it?

READ MORE: Majority of Americans support removing Trump from Colorado ballot

Barr commented, "I hope they do take it up quickly and slap it down, because otherwise he could be left off the ballot in this primary."

Tapper then asked, "So, you're not even saying you disagree with what the Colorado Supreme Court found, you just think it's the wrong process? For instance, Jack Smith's trial, although he's not actually charged with insurrection."

Barr said, "Denial of due process is fatal here, but the 14th amendment is not something that can be applied willy-nilly by the states through ad-hoc proceedings. It was contemplated that the federal government set up the enforcement mechanisms, so you have a standard. You know what is the proof that's required? What is the procedure that's required? And hopefully, some the insurrection is. Now, we're gonna have those issues addressed, the federal investigation has not charged President Trump with insurrection or incitement. That's a trial that's gonna take place with due process, and that's gonna get into all these issues. What was his his state of mind? What were his actions? That is the proceeding where these things could be established."

The CNN host asked, "Would Jack Smith's case be relevant to a 14th Amendment challenge? In other words, even though Trump is not being charged with insurrection in that case, if trump were to be found guilty, if that were to happen, would that that be grounds for 14th amendment challenge in a state, you think?"

READ MORE: 'Not a serious argument': Legal experts tear apart Trump’s newest SCOTUS filing

The former Trump official replied, "It could prompt that, but my own view of that is, the mechanism that's in place is charging him with insurrection or rebellion. And Congress did pass that after the 14th amendment. Congress passed two laws that were meant to implement it. One was the ability to remove someone from office and that was passed in 1870 and was done away with in 1948. And the other one was making it a crime to breech your oath and then hold another offense — to engage in rebellion in insurrection, and I think that's what would be required at this stage."

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Fatal': Bill Barr suggests Colorado court’s ruling a 'grievance that helps' Trumpwww.youtube.com

READ MORE: 'Moral turpitude': Bill Barr hammers Donald Trump

As former President Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith select lawyers to argue represent them before the Supreme Court — if the high court takes the case — Politico reports the legal teams "will be a study in contrasts."

Per the report, "The two teams may collide soon in a high-stakes skirmish at 1 First Street. Last week, Smith petitioned the Supreme Court to swiftly weigh in on Trump's claim that he is immune from being prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Smith hopes the court will take the case on an expedited basis in order to keep Trump’s Washington, D.C., trial — scheduled to begin March 4 — on track."

The special counsel, according to Politico, "has brought in one of the most accomplished modern Supreme Court advocates: Michael Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases at the high court and is a preeminent authority on the court's criminal law doctrines."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung responded to Smith's choice, saying, "Deranged Jack Smith and his team have been so badly outmatched by President Trump's powerhouse attorneys, that 'Deranged' had to beg a tainted Democrat operative, who helped engineer the exposed Mueller hoax, to come to try and save them. That pathetic attempt will fail."

Politico reports, "Dreeben is an institutionalist who spent three decades at the Justice Department defending the power of the executive branch to investigate and prosecute crimes — experience that surely will be relevant as he backs Smith's prosecution of Trump."

The news outlet also notes, "This isn't the first time Dreeben has helped a special counsel investigating Trump. While Trump was president, Dreeben worked on special counsel Robert Mueller's probe of links between Trump's campaign and Russia. He helped work on litigation related to Mueller's authority."

The former president, on the other hand, "has not added any veteran Supreme Court advocates to his team," Politico reports. "Instead, he will be represented by a trio of conservative lawyers" — all based in Missouri — including "D. John Sauer, Will Scharf and Michael Talent, according to a person familiar with Trump's plans."

READ MORE: Elie Mystal: Get ready for the Supreme Court to 'go against the 14th Amendment'

Sauer, the report points out, "is a veteran of the conservative legal community who's best known for his involvement in Republican-backed lawsuits that blocked Joe Biden’s student-debt cancellationand accused the Biden administration of social-media censorship."

Additionally, "according to a database of Supreme Court arguments, Sauer has argued a single case, while Scharf and Talent have not argued before the court."

Yet, Cheung lauds the trio as "some of the most experienced, qualified and determined minds in American jurisprudence."

Politico's full report is here.

For years some political scholars have been asking, “Are caucuses bad for democracy?” while some political analysts have been urging political parties to scrap the caucus system and move to primaries. One legal expert called caucuses a “terrible, anti-democratic disaster,” and The Washington Post Editorial Board called them, “unfair and undemocratic.”

In response to the Colorado Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling citing the U.S. Constitution, declaring Donald Trump cannot legally appear on the state’s 2024 primary ballot having engaged in insurrection, the Colorado Republican Party announced it will circumvent the court and switch to the caucus system, if that ruling is upheld.

“The Colorado Republican Party is planning to withdraw from the state’s primary election and move to a caucus system if the ruling against former President Donald Trump stands,” Fox News reports.

Fourth-ranked GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy responded to the Colorado decision by declaring he would be withdrawing from the state’s primary and demanding every other candidate follow him.

READ MORE: McConnell Invokes His Wife When Asked About Trump’s Hitlerian ‘Blood Poisoning’ Remarks

“I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is also allowed to be on the ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley do the same immediately – or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country,” Ramaswamy declared.

“You won’t have to because we will withdraw from the Primary as a Party and convert to a pure caucus system if this is allowed to stand,” Colorado Republican Party wrote on the social media platform X.

The Trump campaign has said it will appeal the Colorado ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Several legal experts, including former Acting U.S. Solicitor General, have said the Court will take the case and will uphold Colorado’s ruling.

The Colorado Supreme Court announced a bombshell decision on Tuesday, December 19, ruling, 4-3, that 2024 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is disqualified from the state ballot under Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Section 3 states that an "officer" who has engaged in "insurrection" is ineligible to hold political office.

This decision overturns a lower court ruling in Colorado, where, on November 17, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace agreed that Trump engaged in "insurrection" after the 2020 election but argued that as president, he didn't fit the 14th Amendment's definition of "officer." The Colorado Supreme Court, however, disagreed with Wallace's ruling.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

University of Baltimore law professor Kimberly Wehle, a former federal prosecutor, offers legal analysis of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on December 19.

"Both the lower court and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed on a key fact: that Trump engaged in an insurrection or rebellion within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bans such people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution from holding office again," Wehle explains. "The Colorado Supreme Court departed from the lower court's ruling on one technical question: whether the office of the president — and someone who has already taken an oath as president — are covered by Section 3."

Wehle, a scathing Trump critic, continues, "The district court had said no. The Colorado Supreme Court said yes."

The legal expert points out that all seven of the justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors, including the three dissenters in the December 19 ruling. Trump's attorneys plan to appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the option of either taking or not taking the case.

READ MORE: Trump disqualified from primary ballot in Colorado, state high court rules: report

"Whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take this case, and how the justices would rule, is anyone's guess," according to Wehle. "The easy out would be to deny the appeal on the rationale that voting eligibility is for the states to decide under state law, or that the bigger questions need to percolate more at the state level before the Court could be bothered."

The law professor adds, "With Colorado's primary on March 5, this approach would be a legal loss for Trump. The politics are harder to divine at this point: The ruling could prove a political boon for him, galvanizing MAGA voters and lots of money."

READ MORE: Jenna Ellis is poised to become Trump's worst nightmare: legal experts

Kimberly Wehle's full Bulwark article is available at this link.

After voters filed a suit in September seeking to block former President Donald from running for office again under the 14th Amendment, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the MAGA hopeful is, indeed, disqualified from running for president due to his participation in inciting an insurrection.

According to CNBC, "The suit claimed that Trump's incitement of the Jan.. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol by a mob of his supporters was an act of insurrection."

The high court's ruling reads, "A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. The court stays its ruling until January 4, 2024, subject to any further appellate proceedings."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

CNBC notes, "The ruling is the first time a state court has agreed that Trump, who is the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, should be barred from ballots in a state because of a U.S. constitutional provision barring people who have engaged in 'insurrection' from federal office."

According to CNN, "The state Supreme Court decision only applies to Colorado but the historic ruling will roil the 2024 presidential campaign. Colorado election officials have said the matter needs to be settled by January 5, which is the statutory deadline to set the list of candidates for the GOP primary."

READ MORE: Trump denied by Colorado judge — again: report

President Joe Biden's campaign has leaned into attacks on Donald Trump's authoritarian rhetoric — and there's some evidence that voters are beginning to notice.

The president has made protecting democracy a centerpiece of his re-election campaign as he faces a potential rematch against Trump, who has been hit with federal and state charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss. Biden's team has highlighted recent remarks by the Republican frontrunner that historians say stinks of fascism, reported Politico.

“Every time he says it, we are going to call it out,” said Michael Tyler, the Biden campaign’s communications director. “He’s going to echo the rhetoric of Hitler and Mussolini, and we’re going to make sure that people understand just how serious that is every single time.”

Biden himself has called out Trump for comparing his political enemies to vermin and saying, "The blood of America is being poisoned" by immigrants, and while one campaign aide acknowledged that some voters may see comparisons between the former president and Adolf Hitler as over-the-top, pollsters are detecting new worries about the GOP favorite.

ALSO READ: How Republicans paved the road to Texas with misogyny

“We’re seeing in focus groups many more people comment that he’s too divisive, that ‘I don’t like his temperament,’ that ‘I don’t like his personality,’" said Celinda Lake, a pollster for Biden’s 2020 campaign. "It’s really starting to come back. He’s gone too far.”

Earlier this year, focus groups appeared less worried about Trump's authoritarian impulses, Lake said, and former Barack Obama campaign manager Jim Messina urged Biden to keep up the attacks.

"That this guy is even crazier than he used to be — and it takes a long time to get that through," Messina said. “I’m not worried about [voters] hearing about this stuff too much. I’m worried … if you don’t call him on it, that it becomes normative.”

A well-known legal analyst, professor of law, and former U.S. Attorney issued a dire warning on the “great danger” of Donald Trump, acknowledging it is very possible he could win a second presidential term.

Joyce Vance, frequently seen on MSNBC and heard on the “SistersInLaw” podcast she co-hosts, on Tuesday, wrote: “Depending on where you live, it may seem impossible for the country to reelect Donald Trump. I hear that from a lot of people. But the truth is, it’s not. Some of our fellow citizens, inexplicably, do not see the fraud & risk of fascism in front of them.”

Vance included a photo from a recent Trump campaign rally in Nevada, showing supporters jam-packed into the Reno-Sparks Convention Center.

She warned Trump outright said he will “end” the U.S. Constitution if he gets into the White House again:

“Trump told the crowd in Reno: ‘We’re going to win 4 more years in the White House, then after that we’ll negotiate. Based on the way I was treated; we’re probably entitled to another four after that.’ That’s the leading GOP candidate saying he’ll end the Constitution.”

Vance pointed to Trump’s “appeal to Christian nationalism & fascism”:

READ MORE: Florida Bill Banning Pride Flag Would Make Showing Support for LGBTQ People a ‘Political Viewpoint’

Over the weekend, Trump now infamously declared immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of America, remarks that are being compared to Adolf Hitler’s.

“They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country,” Trump said. “When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”

Vance also blasted U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Tuesday, writing: “Lindsey Graham signed off on Trump’s use of language that echoed Hitler. Trump talked last week about immigrants ‘poisoning the blood’ of America. Graham said, ‘I could care less’ what language Trump uses to describe migrants. When Trump was running in 2015, Graham called him ‘a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.’ But apparently now, it’s all okay.”

“So, you see, it’s not just Trump,” she continued. “There are plenty of people who are still willing to vote for him. And others who are willing to support and execute his plans. Trump poses great danger to our future & as citizens, our responsibility is to get to work on the 2024 election.”

READ MORE: DeSantis Says Trump Not a Danger to Democracy and Should Have Gone Further

Vance also pointed to Trump having said over the weekend, “I will implement strong ideological screening for all illegal immigrants. If you hate America. If you want to abolish Israel, if you sympathize with jihadists, then we don’t want you in our country. We don’t want you.”

Those remarks were similar to ones he reportedly had ad-libbed back in October, according to the Washington Post, which warned of Trump’s speaking as if the United States had one religion:

“’I will implement strong ideological screening of all immigrants,’ he said, reading from the teleprompter. ‘If you hate America, if you want to abolish Israel,’ he continued, apparently ad-libbing, ‘if you don’t like our religion — which a lot of them don’t — if you sympathize with the jihadists, then we don’t want you in our country and you are not getting in. Right?'”

Vance commented: “Of course, he gets to decide who among us hates America and should accordingly be excluded. We need to wake up while there’s still time.”

See Vance’s social media posts above or at this link.

Former President Donald Trump doubled down on his anti-immigrant rhetoric during a Saturday, December 16 campaign rally in New Hampshire, where he accused immigrants of "poisoning the blood of our country" and praised authoritarians like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

The New York Times' Trip Gabriel and the Washington Post's Aaron Blake have warned that Trump's "poisoning the blood" comments recall rhetoric that Adolf Hitler used in "Mein Kampf." In that 1925 book, Hitler argued that Jews were "poisoning the blood" of Germany.

According to The Hill's Alexander Bolton, Trump is making some Senate Republicans uncomfortable.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Asked about Trump's "poisoning the blood" comments by The Hill, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia) offered mild criticism.

Tillis told The Hill, "I think it's unhelpful rhetoric." And Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia) said, "Obviously, I don't agree with that. We're all children of immigrants. It's just part of his campaign rhetoric, I guess. I don't know, I can't explain it."

When The Hill asked Sen. John Thune (R-South Dakota) about Trump's praise of Putin, he responded, "Putin's a thug."

Thune accused President Joe Biden of providing inadequate security at the U.S./Mexico border but was also critical of Trump's "poisoning the blood" comments, telling The Hill, "We are a nation of immigrants, we're a welcoming country. But we're also a nation of laws."

READ MORE: Trump's 'poisoning the US blood' rhetoric echoes fascist propaganda of the 1930s: columnist

Read The Hill's full report at this link.

Ashlee Humphreys, a Northwestern University professor known for her expertise on marketing and social media, was among the witnesses in former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss' defamation lawsuit against ex- New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — which ended with a jury awarding them $148 million in damages.

Humphreys is also an expert witness in another defamation lawsuit: former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll's latest defamation case against former President Donald Trump. But according to the Daily Beast's Jose Pagliery, Trump and his legal team are "desperately" fighting to block her testimony.

Pagliery, in an article published on December 19, reports that Humphrey's testimony could be used to determine the amount of damages that Trump owes — which, according to Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan, is why Trump and his legal team want to block her as a witness.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

In a court filing, Kaplan noted the damages Giuliani owes in the Freeman/Moss defamation case and wrote, "Trump is understandably desperate to get rid of Professor Humphreys…. The only issue at the upcoming trial is the amount of damages that Carroll is entitled to receive. Professor Humphreys will be critical to Carroll's case, and Trump's own expert has already been disqualified."

Kaplan continued, "That Professor Humphreys recently testified in another case that resulted in a $108 million defamation verdict likely adds to Trump's sense of urgency."

Pagliery notes that Humphreys has "shown herself uniquely suited to slapping a dollar figure on MAGA World misconduct."

"At Giuliani's D.C. trial last week, she told jurors that the disgraced former New York mayor had so severely damaged the reputations of Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss that it would take anywhere between $17 million and $47 million to help them recover," the Daily Beast reporter observes. "Days later, jurors awarded them each more than $16 million for that very task — plus another $75 million as a punishment for the conspiracy-spreading disbarred lawyer."

READ MORE: Star witnesses: How Giuliani's $148 million defamation case could be very bad news for Trump

The Daily Beast's full report is available at this link (subscription required).

During Monday night's episode of MSNBC's The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle, guest host Symone Sanders-Townsend spoke with former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade about a "false narrative" Donald Trump is pushing in his defense of January 6 rioters.

Sanders-Townsend played a clip of Trump comparing Minneapolis protesters following George Floyd's 2020 murder to the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

"You remember in Minnesota, when they took over the police station, they took it over and they burned it down," the MAGA hopeful said. "By the way, what happened to those people? Are those people in jail with the J6 hostages? What happened to those people? They're not in jail with the j6 hostages. I don't call them prisoners, I call them hostages."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Sanders-Townsend said to McQuade, "We know that they are actually not hostages. Those folks went through the legal system. They were found guilty. Donald Trump is trying to cast them, though, as political prisoners. Barbara, how big of a problem is this?"

The former U.S. attorney replied, "This is a huge game of disinformation, Symone, to engage in revisionist history. We know, we saw with our own eyes, you were there, that these people committed crimes. They were arrested. They've been charged. They are getting due process in our criminal justice system. To refer to them as hostage is just a complete misnomer. And also, the false equivalency, the 'whataboutism,' comparing what they did with some of the George Floyd protesters. We know that many of the George Floyd protesters were peaceful and certainly were not charged with any crimes nor they should have been. There were others, who participated in protests during the summer of 2020 who engaged in violence, and those people were properly charged with crimes. And so, to suggest that this is all part of this us versus them game, and it's really important that you, and others in the public eye, push back on this false narrative."

Watch the video below or at this link.

'We saw with our own eyes': Ex-prosecutor fact-checks Trump's 'huge game of disinformation'www.youtube.com

READ MORE: 'We had until January 6 to win': Trump lawyer lays out plot to overturn election in leaked audio

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to expedite its decision on Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution, the court has placed "all deadlines" in special counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election interference case against the MAGA hopeful on hold, according to Politico's Kyle Cheney.

Cheney reports via X (formerly Twitter), "JUST IN: All deadlines in Trump's DC prosecution are on hold pending Trump's immunity appeal. But Jack Smith is filing things based on the suspended deadlines to speed things along should the case resume."

This comes minutes after the Politico reporter wrote, "JUST IN: US appeals court in DC set arguments on Trump's presidential immunity appeal for Jan. 9. One of the judges wanted to wait for SCOTUS to decide whether to take the case before scheduling this, but she was outvoted."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

In response to Cheney's reporting, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin listed more deadlines in the case via X, writing, "So here's the holiday schedule in Trump legal: Trump's brief opposing SCOTUS's direct review on the immunity issues is due 12/20 by 4 p.m.; in the meantime, his brief to the D.C. Circuit on the same questions is due 12/23 with further briefs due from [special counsel Jack] Smith on 12/29 and Trump again on 1/2."

She continued, "Oral argument now follows in the D.C. Circuit on 1/9—but none of the D.C. Circuit schedule holds if SCOTUS takes the case. And sandwiched on either side of the D.C. Circuit argument? Both sides' post-trial briefs are due in the NY A.G.'s civil fraud case, in which Trump's written directed verdict motion was just denied, on 1/5. Closing arguments in that case follow on 1/11, with the Iowa caucuses on 1/15 & E. Jean Carroll's second trial opening the next day. I'm exhausted already."

Cheney added, "How fast could the appeals court rule on Trump's immunity claim after oral arguments? The court in Georgia just showed us that complex decisions on matters of national urgency can take … a single business day."

He was referring to former Trump chief of staff and Fulton County co-defendant Mark Meadows' denial from a federal appeals court Monday on his bid to move his Georgia case to federal court.

READ MORE: Why the Supreme Court 'should resoundingly reject Trump’s immunity bid'