Main Edition
US
FR
December 20, 2023 - 7:30am
When President Joe Biden said that “democracy is on the ballot” in the 2022 midterms, few could have imagined that this is what he meant. This week, a court in Colorado acted to short-circuit the presidential election in their state — in favour of Biden.
In Anderson v. Griswold, a 4-3 majority of the Colorado Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision to hold that former president Donald Trump was a participant in an insurrection and, by the terms of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, is ineligible for the presidency. He must therefore be excluded from the Republican primary ballot in that state, scheduled for 5 March 2024.
The insurrection in question was the January 6 Capitol riots that attempted to interrupt the counting of the electoral votes from the 2020 election, which Trump claimed (and still claims) was stolen from him.
The theory that the post-Civil War amendment automatically disqualifies him is not an open-and-shut case, legally. In fact, the opposite is true: until recently, such a claim would have been dismissed as constitutional fan-fiction — and has been by courts in Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.
In the Rocky Mountains, though, Left-wing legal prospectors struck the mother lode. The court found that the novel interpretation of the clause did apply, despite Congress never authorising it, and despite other state courts finding no merit in it. Indeed, Trump has never been found guilty of insurrection by the Senate or any court.
The court found it difficult to define “insurrection” and looked to a variety of sources old and new. But this is the problem with making up your own laws as you go — there are no neutral standards. Had Congress ever enacted the provisions of Section 3, there would have been a law for the court to read and a definition of the terms used in it. But there isn’t, so the esteemed justices of the Colorado Supreme Court decided, as Bill O’Reilly once did, to “do it live”.
In the court’s opinion, Trump “engaged in insurrection,” and for certain definitions of “engaged in” and “insurrection,” that might be true. But no effort has been made to establish which definitions apply, nor to see whether a jury would agree that they do apply to Trump’s actions that day.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeLike Liberals in general, the left of centre mindset is unfamiliar with the concept of the unintended consequence.
Yep. Sometime down the line it will be a Democrat in the dock and being vilified for something or other and the precedent will be how Trump has been treated since 2016.
This stuff will come back to bite the Democrats in the future.
Hopefully very soon!
Along with the concept of opportunity cost.
Like him or loathe him, it is harder and harder to ignore the claim that Democrats are using ‘lawfare’ against Trump. They must really fear him. Not for what he would do, but (I suspect) for what he would expose about the state of justice and politics in the USA. There are favourable commercial contracts and government boondoggles to protect.
And as Kathleen Burnett says, imagine the howls of anguish if the same lawfare was used against a prospective Democratic presidential candidate. The legal system may be ‘bent’ but there are still some holdouts.
What do you call the Biden impeachment, if not lawfare? Or the Bill Clinton impeachment, for that matter? Both sides play that game.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a sworn deposition about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Which in fact he did.
And Bill was later disbarred for his perjury, if memory serves.
Biden is not being impeached.
There is just an inquiry.
Of course, we can’t have an inquiry, because there is no evidence.
Police are often hampered by this very rule, which says you can’t begin to investigate something unless you already have cast-iron evidence.
President Biden has already explained that he is totally innocent and Robert Peters, Robin Ware and JRB Ware will back him up on that.
The bank statements tell a different story.
Both Trump and Biden look as though they both will be impeached for the same case. Trump for trying to get the case investigated, and Biden for the dubious optics of the act itself.
t*t-for-tat, as predicted. But t*t-for-tat is also why Democrat activists are now trembling at the thought of Trump getting re-elected, given what’s happened to Trump supporters under the current DOJ.
Post-2016 Trump didn’t go after Clinton as he said he would, but by now, with all the take-down attempts against him, Democrats are petrified that he won’t be so magnanimous if he returns to office in 2024.
Lawfare is bad law with worse and worse consequences. Adults should have stopped it a long time ago. But with current polarised justice everything comes down to the last nine individuals, who really need to re-assert control to remove politics and politicking from the legal sphere.
or indeed the Nixon impeachments
Nah. Nixon conducted illegal bugging operations against his political enemies – and there was the evidence to prove it. That surely justifies impeachment. Bill Clinton just had extra-marital sex with a consenting adult and tried to wriggle out of answering, Here the phrase ‘so what’ comes to mind.
By “wriggled out of it” you mean he committed perjury to a grand jury.
Maybe. But I just cannot get myself to take that particular case seriously. The Republicans (with Kenneth Starr acting for them) managed to manipulate Clinton into a position where they could interrogate him under oath about his sex life – and nail him for perjury if he refused to divulge. And Clinton managed to get out of the trap. Just imagine someone trying to get Trump – or you – on that trick.
I’m with you on that one. The severity of the underlying act matters, or at least it should. Technically, you can be convicted of perjury for lying under oath if all you lied about was whether you saw a person jaywalking or letting his dog poop on a neighbor’s lawn, and in a lot of situations the penalty and severity are the same, except where it matters, in terms of common sense. The Republicans embarrassed themselves with that whole business. The Democrats are doing the same now. Both sides have been guilty of this and it’s always detrimental to democracy, but the people are angry and want someone to blame. If they ever mostly agree on who’s to blame, well, let’s just say I wouldn’t want to be that person or group.
Please don’t be daft! Trump was impeached twice – one totally on bogus evidence as was the second. You are in a fog!
Both sides are indeed guilty, and deserving of reproach for their actions. Where this case is different is that the actual will of the people might be subverted. Impeachment is a process, and the bar for starting the process is pretty low from a legal and political standpoint. Custom and tradition were the only things preventing either side from using the impeachment process politically. Those things hold until they don’t. The bar for actually removing the President are much higher, a 2/3 majority in the Senate, an advantage rarely achieved by either party, and never exercised.
Nixon might or might not have been convicted had he not resigned. It was better that he resigned and the question avoided, because actually removing a sitting President is a much more severe step than just bringing impeachment charges. It gives the impression of a small group of politicians overruling the popular will. Nixon probably would have been impeached had he not resigned because there was broad agreement within the populace that what he did was wrong.
For better or for worse, this is not the case with Trump. For better or for worse, he is the chosen candidate of maybe half the country. We know he won’t drop out for the greater good. This ruling is an attempt to take the choice from the people. A significant section of Trump’s supporters do believe the 2020 election was stolen and do believe that there are conspiracies at work against him. They see him as a champion of the common man fighting an entrenched establishment bent on subverting the will of the people. This furthers that narrative in a way that even those who dislike Trump and wish he’d go away, like myself, might find troubling. It makes him look right and denies the people a chance to reject him a second time and send him on his way.
Besides that, it won’t work. It will drive hardcore Trump supporters to new levels of rage and anger and undermine the entire system for generations to come. It’s an undemocratic move that will taint the process even further than it already has been. Further, Trump can simply point to evidence of the conspiracy, then anoint someone, probably Ramaswamy, to be his chosen candidate, putting forth an alternative with all the populism and none of the baggage. He’ll then be able to campaign almost as if he were the nominee. The Democrats don’t seem to understand all the ways that this could end in a colossal backfire.
Nothing unintended about it. The left’s definition of democracy is that they win.
You mean that the right will happily accept that when they get less votes they do not get the office? Trump, for one. seems to have different ideas.
I’m afraid Trump isn’t the one trying to prevent his opponents being allowed even to contest the election. When you can’t even resort to whataboutery, you are in real trouble.
Fewer votes, not, “Less votes”
Why should they “happily accept” getting fewer votes when this legal maneuver is specifically designed to do that?
One may dismiss claims that the 2020 election was less than on the up and up, but this is naked rigging via the courts. Without any previous *finding* via either the US Senate or other body that Trump actually fomented an “insurrection.”
On the one hand, Trump is an unstable narcissist with dictatorial aspirations. On the other hand, the Democrats have supported: divisive, segregationist racial policies; child mutilation and the usurpation of women’s rights in the name of ‘trans rights’; government censorship in the guise of ‘fighting disinformation’; lockdowns, mask mandates and school closures in the name of public safety; rioting, looting and mindless violence as a form of ‘racial reckoning’; prosecution of American parents concerned with what their children are being taught as ‘domestic terrorists’; rabid antisemitism; the elimination of cash bail and the freeing of violent psychopaths; a relentlessly preachy and censorious entertainment culture; a military more concerned with coddling service members than training them in the vital work of national defense and overall a deliberate undermining of the ideals of the Enlightenment in favor of an insane, incoherent and vindictive ideology which promotes no solutions, just endless conflict and repression of civil rights by the state. And now this. With Trump, anything could happen. With the Democrats, we already know what’s happening.
This is true in every progressive theatre of operations. In the name of anti-racism, they switch from the game of ‘colour blind civic individualism’ to the game of ‘anti-white ethno-racial separatism’….It’s astonishing the very obvious unintended consequence is taking so long to kick in (which is a testament to the decency of most conservatives and ordinary people). But if they carry on, white nationalism will become a thing.
With the Left, it’s never about what/why, only who/whom.
Now we will get Republican dominated state judiciaries doing the same thing. It’s mind boggling that these judges can’t see what will happen here.
It’s stunning how the Democrats don’t seem to realize the myriad ways that this could backfire. Trump could easily appoint a successor candidate, like Kushner or Ivanka or maybe Ramaswamy, and still control the movement himself. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says a President can’t basically take marching orders from some figure in the shadows (insert Cheney reference here). Or maybe this new person proves even more charismatic and popular than Trump?
Or, maybe this inspires a segment of the electorate to boycott the election, making the results ridiculously one-sided and therefore completely meaningless, like all those Russian elections where Putin wins with 80% of the vote or more. When people no longer believe they can affect change through the system, they will try to go around it, get away from it, or just blow it up. All of these things are at least as bad as a second Trump presidency, and they’ll last a lot longer than four years.
What if the next Democrat President gets into a scandal and some conservative court uses this same tactic to get that person thrown off the ballot. We’ve already seen more impeachments in my forty year lifespan than the previous 150 years of American history. Now it’s OK to prosecute your opponent and keep him off the ballot if you’re sufficiently frightened of him or hate him enough. Is the future of America going to be decided by judges who are supposed to be impartial and nonpartisan but are clearly and obviously neither of those things. What’s the next level of escalation, manipulating the courts themselves? People have already lost faith in the government. Will they be given cause to lose faith in the law as well?
At best, this furthers Trump’s narrative of an establishment that ignores the people and is willing to cheat to hold onto power. Making Trump look like a genius with uncanny foresight is not easy to do, but here we are. I thought a second Trump victory was probably the worst thing that could happen to America, but this might actually be worse.
I spent some time trawling evidence on the election results and I am by no means convinced that, had that election been held absent of all electoral interference, Biden would have won. 40% of the US electorate agrees, btw.
At very least, the real culprit here is a faulty elections system: mail-in ballots, lack of voter ID and opaque voting machines are the real threats to democracy, because they undermine the thing the system is supposed to nurture and be built upon: faith in its fairness.
Then of course there’s the fact of what the democrats have been up to since 2016: Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, social media censorship, now this electoral interference in Colorado. If anything, the message here is that Trump was right all along.
Electoral unfairness can be found on both sides. For the Republicans there is gerrymandering and zealous purging of voting rolls of likely democrats. As for the Democrats in the media, the Republicans have the totally invented accusations of criminality against Hilary Cliton (‘lock her up’), and evidenceless accusations that Biden senior was involved in the shenanigans of Biden junior. Not to speak of the totally unfounded accusations of electoral fraud. If that kind of thing invalidated democracy, then it would already be dead – killed by both sides.
I have yet to see any actual evidence that either mail-in ballots, lack of ID, or voting machines caused any significant electoral fraud. Going back to paper voting would be a good confidence-building measure, but the other two are just the Republicans trying to tilt the system in their favour – and looking for an excuse to explain how come they lost. If you have the evidence, please send a link.
Arguably Trump is an insurrectionist, which should disqualify him from being president, but the article is right. You cannot disqualify him without a prior conviction, or some more objective proof.
Ballot harvesting is legal in most swing states and the Democrats are much better at it than the Republicans.
The basic problem in the US is you can’t get elected to anything without raising a lot of money and the money always comes with strings attached. Since Clinton the Democrats have been in hock to Wall Street – hence Obama’s utter failure to deal with corrupt bankers in the wake of 2008, the pro-China policies of both Obama and Clinton and the warmongering.
Election meddling does indeed happen on both side, but there is a huge power imbalance here, arising from the nature of electoral politics in the US: democrat votes are more concentrated in larger urban areas where interference can be perpetrated at greater scale, and more easily. Hence why the voter share increased by 10% from 2016 to 2020 (despite there being a raging pandemic in the latter election). Of the swing states that went to Trump (e.g. Ohio), that increase was below 10%; the ones that went to Biden (e.g. Arizona) saw an above-10% increase in turnout. Swing states with democrat-controlled AGs (who run the election process) saw higher turnout that those with Rep controlled AGs.
As for the actual evidence, just follow Ken Paxton and listen to what he has to say. He provides boatloads of evidence. Video of ballot boxes without chains of custody, etc.
As for voter ID – well, my goodness, this is an open goal. Why on earth would you defend a lack of voter ID unless to rig elections? You can’t take a Greyhound bus in America without an ID. You can’t buy a beer. You can’t drive a car (which means you can’t get around). Yet you can elect the leader of the free world? That just makes no sense.
Your swing figures could equally well be be interpreted to mean that a lot of people got galvanised to vote in order to keep Trump out. States going to Biden or having democrat-controlled AGs would then be those where there were more anti-Trump voters, (hence the Democrat control), not a result of manipulation. As for Ken Paxton – sorry, but one look at his WIkipedia page shows that he is way too partisan for anyone who does not already agree with him to trust what he says.
Ken Paxton? LOL!
‘evidenceless accusations that Biden senior was involved in the shenanigans of Biden junior.’
You mean apart from taking part in the phone calls?
Apparently, just to talk about the weather….
Trump is not an insurrectionist because an insurrection never took place. It was a rather aimless protest that got stupidly out of hand.
The left is claiming an unarmed insurrection took place.
Sort of like a fireless fire, snowless avalanch or a waterless flood.
And mostly peaceful protests…
“It was a rather aimless protest that got stupidly out of hand.”
Agreed, however, the charge is that they and/or Trump wanted to prevent/delay Biden’s signing in, as a tactic to keep Trump in place. Their competence, or lack of, is not a protection in law – anymore than robbing a bank with a banana under your coat.
That said, I think the Colorado ruling will not go well for anyone, except Trump. The possibility of civil war if Trump is not allowed to run is way too close for comfort.
Quite so. It was barely a sustained erection! But it scarred the limp dicked “Liberals” sufficiently to go on this pathetic pogrom of conservatives.
All are political prisoners as far as I am concerned.
“The Republicans have the totally invented accusations of criminality against Hilary Cliton (‘lock her up’), and evidenceless accusations that Biden senior was involved in the shenanigans of Biden junior. Not to speak of the totally unfounded accusations of electoral fraud.”
That was delusional
You are wrong here on so many levels.
(1) The Jan 6 insurrection is a myth. There was a protest. The police fired rubber bullets, things got a bit out of hand, but it was NOT an insurrection. Had the participants wanted to overthrow the government, they would have come with guns, of which, as I’m sure you, there is an average of more than 1 for every adult in the US.
(2) Hilary Clinton destroyed evidence. Had anybody else done that they would have been in jail.
(3) The evidence is overwhelming that Biden senior participated in influence peddling allowing his son and brother to bring in many millions for the family business.
And don’t ask me to cite sources. Just read for yourself.
Nope. “on both sides” just doesn’t work on this one. Search high and low for an equivalence to preventing your opponent from standing; there isn’t one.
Pistol to chin, pull trigger.
I do not have to search. Trump is on record as trying to pressure officials into inventing votes for himself (‘find me more votes’), and/or returning slates of electors from the states that do not reflect the vote result, and/or refusing to certify the result once in. Which is why the idea of preventing him from standing (sensible or not) is getting so much traction. Would you not agree that ignoring the result of the vote is rather worse than interfering with the candidate selection?
Have you read the transcript?
https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/02/15/read-full-transcript-donald-trumps-call-brad-raffensperger/.
I have now, and very interesting it is. And I’ll admit that ‘find me more votes’ is a little misleading. Trump never admits that the votes are not there. He just states without evidence (for if he had the evidence he would have made it public long ago) that he knows he won by hundreds of thousands of votes. This is the same man, btw, who claims that he had bigger crowds at his inauguration than Obama, even though the videos proving the contrary were in the public domain. He does tell Raffensperger repeatedly, though, that if he does not come across he will not be re-elected. And coming from the POTUS. “you know I won the state by hundreds of thousands of votes, why will you not say it” is pretty threatening in itself.
Joe go to bed already! You have to be up before midday tomorrow.
Watching from a distance, it seems incredible how hard the Democrats are trying to get Trump re-elected by handing him exactly what he wants: evidence to show voters which seems to confirm his narrative.
There has been very little coverage in the UK media of the footage of a Democratic aide having sex in a congressional committee room which has ended up online. But its fascinating how so many progressives online are doubling-down on insisting that he has been persecuted for “who he loves” (the aide is a gay man), rather than been justifiably given his cards for a grossly unprofessional and inappropriate act.
Obviously the Democratic Party machine itself will insist that the matter was dealt with decisively. But from now on every time the question of morals and decency comes up (Jill Biden in 2020, “Decency is on the ballot”) Trump has a photo of this guy campaigning alongside Joe Biden to wave around and can, with only a bit of exaggeration, make out that democrats and progressives excuse indecent acts in the Capitol.
Its like they want him to win.
To film oneself having sex in a committee room in Congress is an act of supreme disrespect (to the democracy process and the institution especially) and depraved arrogance – all the more so as the originator then shared it on a gay website. That the Democratic Party apparently condones, or at least tolerates such disgusting, gross indecency (by not summarily dismissing the participants), demonstrates a lack of fundamental moral standards at its core.
Its like they want him to win.
It does look that way. Whatever the left thinks of Donald Trump, it needs him. Desperately. He is their oxygen, meth, booze, and any other addiction rolled into one. Not a day goes by without their obsession being given voice in some way or other. The Atlantic magazine has gone full stupid with an entire series of all the dictatorial things that Trump will allegedly do if re-elected while steadfastly ignoring, when not justifying, the catalog of abuses associated with Team Biden.
They don’t want him to win; they just want him to be the Republican presidential candidate. They believe he will alienate enough undecided voters, and moderate Republicans, to give Biden a narrow win.
I fear for our country if Biden gets another term, but I have to admit the Dems play politics better than the Republicans who seem to be sadly disorganized. Biden might be looking at a second term unless the Republicans get their act together.
I think you are correct. But what an incredibly risky bet – similar to Comey’s 2016 last second Hilary ”legal” ruling. Trump leads Biden in polling currently.
The strategy makes a lot more sense if the Democrat insiders are confident that Biden will drop out leaving the Republicans stuck with Trump against a fresh, relatively unblemished, newcomer. I’m convinced this will happen -the evil party outsmarts the stupid party once again.
And what better way to have him be the candidate than by keeping him off the ballot.
More legal warfare against Trump. I’m shocked I tell ya. Everytime they do this kind of thing, people lose a little more trust in the institutions. To save democracy we must subvert democracy. This stuff is repulsive. They’re doing the same thing to Musk. I hope Musk walks away from the EU rather than capitulate to its censorship demands. No more Twitter for Europeans.
Quite so. They should force the Democrat party to relinquish that euphemistic title!
Like everybody, I was looking forward to the trials and investigations of the social media accounts of the Jan 6th insurrectionists.
Hundreds on trial. Thousands of phone messages scanned. Facebook pages downloaded looking for clues.
Every morning, I scanned the news for details of yet another person on trial saying that Trump was behind it, or yet another phone found to have text messages saying Trump was behind it, or yet another Whatsapp conversation saying Trump was behind it.
3 years of bitter disappointment.
Still, never mind. We all know Trump was behind it. Who needs evidence?
Maybe just listen to the words that Trump used that day and the days leading up to it?
You’re welcome!
‘”I don’t even like to say it because I’ll be arrested. I’ll say it. We need to go into the Capitol.”‘
There is not a single thing in those words which implicates Trump in *anything*. Not one word there which can be held against him. Not one.
Sounds like and open and shut case of conspiracy to trespass.
“In attempting to protect democracy”
It is no such thing. It is an attempt tp destroy democracy.
Fearing that they will not win the Democrats are abusing the legal system take out the opponent.
The US is a banana republic.
Makes you wonder what they have against Putin
The judges must have looked at Biden’s polling numbers.
One third of US citizens already believe if their candidate doesn’t win in 24 it will be an illegitimate election. And they have due cause with some of the anticipated stunts still to come …. more mail in ballot shennanigans, 8m illegals given the vote, Biden just turned on the oil and gas spiggots harder than Trump to get prices down, etc. The only winner in the US election next year will be violence. The 4th turning will move to its next phase.
This “4th turning” stuff is in my mind malarkey.
Dictators invariably arrange for courts to exclude candidates that have a chance of overturning the prearranged fraudulent “Democratic” vote in their favour on trumped up charges. It is standard practice in banana republics of all stripes, so it is plain who the authoritarians are in this forthcoming US election.
A democratic insurrection is usually the result of such manipulation absent a willingness to shoot and imprison dissidents. Do Colorado Democrats have the repressive apparatus to enforce their will?
In attempting to protect democracy, this court is helping to destroy itThis sub headline attempts to provide cover where none is warranted. There is no attempt to “protect” anything; there is every attempt to subvert democracy and if that requires further explanation, then the game is already lost.
What one thinks of Trump is immaterial. The choice of electing him lies with we the people, those confounding souls that often bedevil the machinations of the political class, not with a few people in black robes.
Of course, it sets a precedent. So does using federal agencies to hassle your main opponent and everyday people who are not likely to be on your side, but that’s happening. So does govt openly working with third parties to stifle speech, an unholy alliance that I believe has a name. Someone remind what that name is because I hear the term bandied about all the time in reference to one’s enemies, usually while justifying a behavior that comes from that ism’s playbook.
Does anyone seriously still believe Biden received 81 million legitimate votes?
All the sane people do, as well as every court that has ever been asked to litigate the matter.
Its only Trump worshipping tin foil hat wearers who deny it. You recognize the description, chum?
I am gonna bet that Trump goes up in the polls. Just a hunch. But that seems to happen every time they go after him with indictments and suits, he gets a bump.
And, I suspect that the Supreme Court is going to decimate almost all the cases related to Jan 6th, including this one.
Just my take on the odds.
The left extreme gets closer and closer to blowing up the rule of law. They aim for the rule of power, instead, their power. To act, or speak, or pretend otherwise, is a foolish and dangerous waste of time. The forces of sanity and our future either engage them to defeat them, rather like Hamas, or, we lose to them now, and so does the world.
A state court determines Trump is guilty of federal crimes he hasn’t been charged with. Seems perfectly reasonable. I suspect this also renders Trump ineligible to join bowling leagues in Colorado.
Both parties demonstrate the emotional immaturity of spoilt children and an unwillingness to accept responsibility. They are siblings who have inherited a wealthy company and run it into the ground while they argue about trivia.
Ibn Khaldun said dynasties last 120 years.The vast majority of Americans have not known hardship since the Depression ( comparatively few saw combat in WW2 ) . What destroys a civilisation is affluence as it saps the vitality and stops the toughness being developed needed to overcome obstacles.
The January 6th protesting would be an insult to any real, armed insurrection in past history.
Yes. Its incompetence was embarrassing nevertheless the intention was clear: to prevent the certification of the election and to ‘hang Mike Pence’. Recall Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch — comparably incompetent but again his intention was clear and he got it right the next time.
I genuinely wonder if the US Deep State actually wants a civil war because every thing they do seems calculated to trigger one.
You’d go to war over a clown like Donald Trump?
You’re even dumber than I thought – and that is saying something
Better he’s defeated at the Ballot Box, but no doubt he was/is an insurrectionist. It’ll be overturned by SCOTUS where his appointees will be as partisan as the Judges in Colorado, so it won’t change much.
And thus Putin, Xi and Kim Wrong-Un’s preferred POTUS will continue to have a shot at re-election. Pick your side.
The best thing that could happen for the Republicans is that Mr Trump be banned from standing in as many states as possible, and indeed federally. Then a unifying candidate can be chosen and sweep the Democrats from office.
The Colorado decision is bad news for Joe Biden.
The Republican leadership would offer Nikki Haley as the unifyfing candidate
That would do YUGE damage to the party, good
Yes, but interesting seeing donors move in Haley’s direction.
Perhaps the UN could parachute in a suitable “unifying candidate”. That’s how the EU does things in Southern Europe.
You grossly underestimate the GOP’s ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory under enormous odds. Besides, the party has offered numerous unifying candidates of late: Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole, and W. Who in that group inspires anyone?
They occupy the same swamp.
I suspect none of them will run this time. But there are a number of good candidates who are, if the current frontrunning anti democratic self obsessed lunatic can be dehorsed
Why do Trump cultists continue to think he is above the law?
For the same reasons that Navalny cultists continue to think that he is above Russian law?
Err, the Law in Russia? Any independent judiciary there? Or you employed by the FSS?