Rejected! The resolution to force Trump to end Iran strikes

The Senate rejected a resolution Wednesday to block President Donald Trump from ordering further strikes on Iran, declined to halt a war that Trump started without the consent of Congress. Democrats along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) forced a vote on the war powers resolution over the opposition of most Republicans, who control the Senate. Democrats implored a handful of Republicans to break with their party to end the conflict and reassert Congress’s control over declaring war.

“This essentially is the vote whether to go to war or not,” Paul told reporters. But Paul was the only Republican who voted to advance the resolution, which failed 47-53 on a procedural vote. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (Pennsylvania) voted against it.

The vote was the latest setback in Democrats’ long-shot strategy to block Trump from ordering military strikes without authorization from Congress. They have forced votes on eight war power resolutions in the House and Senate a record for a single Congress since Trump returned to office in an attempt to block him from striking Venezuela, Iran and boats near Latin America suspected of smuggling drugs. All of them have failed. Republicans in Congress broadly support Trump’s decision to strike Iran, though a few have raised concerns about Congress’s lack of involvement.

“Yes, I wish I would have been consulted,” Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said in a statement. “I wish my vote would have been asked for before this. But the President did act within his legal bounds to do what he has done.”

Curtis and other Republicans argued that ordering the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war days after it started would send the wrong message. Sen. Todd Young (R-Indiana) said he wished in retrospect that Congress had done more to assert its authority before the strikes.

“We should’ve been holding hearings and asking probing questions and making the case to get a greater measure of unity around this operation on the front end,” Young told reporters ahead of the vote. “But here we are. We’re at war.”

Democrats countered that it was not too late to halt a war it did not authorize.

“We must act to stop Trump’s belligerence,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) said on the Senate floor before the vote. “The American people will be watching how senators vote. History will judge this chamber for how we act.”

Democrats have argued that Americans do not want to be ensnared in another war in the Middle East, but early polls have presented a less clear picture of how the public views the war. A CNN poll found 59 percent of Americans disapproved of the decision to strike Iran and 41 percent approved. But a Fox News poll found registered voters evenly split: 50 percent approved and 50 percent disapproved. Several other surveys including a Washington Post flash poll have found results in between the CNN and Fox polls.

Many Democrats have compared Trump’s strikes on Iran to the Iraq War, although President George W. Bush sought and received authorization from Congress before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Trump has not asked for authorization to strike Iran, and Democrats warned that failing to rein him in now could set a precedent.

“If we vest the sole power to make war in the president of the United States, the sole decision to bring a country into war with the president of the United States, there is no check on the use of that authority, there is no check on the abuse of that authority,”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) who introduced the resolution with Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia), Paul and Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote. The House is set to vote Thursday on a similar war powers resolution, which Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) said he believes he has the votes to defeat.

“The idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief … to finish this job is a frightening prospect to me,” Johnson told reporters. “It’s dangerous, and I am certainly hopeful and I believe we do have the votes to put it down.”

The War Powers Resolution, which Congress passed in 1973 in response to the Vietnam War, allows a single lawmaker to force a vote to withdraw U.S. forces from a conflict or to block strikes when hostilities are imminent. But even if Congress passed such a resolution, it would stand little chance of forcing Trump to end the war with Iran because he could veto it. Overriding a veto would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers. No war powers resolution has ever overcome a veto.

Kaine and Paul waited for weeks to force the vote as Trump massed U.S. forces near Iran, even as the two countries continued to negotiate over Iran’s nuclear program. Kaine said last week that he wanted the vote to happen before any strikes because it would increase its odds of passage.

But at least two House Democrats said they would oppose the resolution if their colleagues forced a vote on it while negotiations were ongoing, making it hard for Democrats to get the timing right. Kaine said before Wednesday’s vote that he would file more resolutions to end the conflict in Iran if the vote failed. The Senate and House votes this week are “the first effort of all Congress going on the record about this, but I can assure you it’s not going to be the last,” he told reporters.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) argued before the vote that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was unconstitutional and suggested another way that Democrats could force an end to the conflict so by refusing to vote for legislation funding it. Democrats might get such an opportunity soon if the administration asks Congress for more money to prosecute the war.

“If you want to stop this war, say we will not pay for it,” Graham said on the Senate floor. “I would not agree with you, but at least it would be constitutional.”

The 1973 law also requires the president to withdraw forces after 60 days or 90 days if the president seeks an extension unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) said he does not believe the Trump administration needed to seek authorization to continue the Iran campaign even if it lasts for longer than 90 days.

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities, the operations that are currently underway there,” - Thune told reporters.

But Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) said he believed Trump would need to seek authorization from Congress if he wanted to deploy ground troops in Iran, which the administration has not ruled out.

“Most American presidents have said, ‘Listen, if I’m going to commit ground troops into combat, that constitutes war in the constitutional sense and would require some sort of authorization,’” Hawley told reporters. “I think that’s a pretty tried-and-tested line.”

Defense is toast After Stunning Student Confession against Don Lemon!

Well them shoes keep on fitting for Cindafella disgraced once CNN anchor as a Temple University student has turned himself in on federal charges in connection with a protest at a St. Paul, Minnesota church that also involved self described journalist Don Lemon, authorities said this week that Jerome Richardson, a 21-year-old senior at the university, was taken into federal custody Monday in Philadelphia in connection with the January 18 demonstration at Cities Church, according to officials and court records. He was later released pending further proceedings.

Richardson is one of several people indicted in the case, which also includes Lemon and others, on charges alleging they conspired to interfere with the free exercise of religion and unlawfully disrupt the church service during an anti-immigration protest. In public statements made before his arrest, Richardson acknowledged helping Lemon with logistics and connecting him with local contacts ahead of the protest, saying he supported the reporting and demonstration.

“Don was reporting on the situation on the ground during the occupation by DHS and ICE and Border Patrol agents. At that time, I was proud to support his work in exposing the everyday injustices that resulted from the agenda. As a consequence of this support, I’m now being targeted by Trump and the federal administration,” Richardson said in the video, per CBS News. “This is the price of being unapologetic about humanity and love of Christ,” he continued, noting he supported the protesters, highlighting “the hypocrisy of how Pastor David Easterwood could simultaneously be a pastor at the church and the local leader of ICE operations.”

“What people are experiencing goes against human and civil rights as well as the teachings of Jesus, who indeed flipped over tables,” Richardson said in the video. Temple University released a statement about Richardson’s charges that said in part. We understand that the circumstances surrounding this matter are developing. Out of respect for the privacy of the student and the ongoing legal process, the University will not comment on the specifics. As we’ve shared previously, we deeply value the First Amendment, including the rights of free speech, a free press and the freedom to exercise religion. We encourage and educate our students to engage thoughtfully and lawfully to advocate for their beliefs and values, raise awareness and contribute to constructive dialogue.

Lemon, who was arrested previously by federal agents in connection with the incident, has said he was present in a reporting capacity and has defended his actions, citing First Amendment protections. Federal prosecutors allege that the protest which interrupted a worship service at the church involved actions intended to intimidate or impede congregants’ religious exercise, triggering the use of federal civil rights statutes in the indictment.

“You have the right to worship freely and safely, and if you violate that sacred right, we are coming after you,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a video posted on social media. The case remains pending, and court appearances for the defendants have been scheduled as the legal process continues. Lemon and three other defendants arrested in connection with the protest, which took place inside a St. Paul church were released last week following initial court appearances. Lemon said he plans to fight the charges after a federal grand jury indicted him and several other activists in U.S. District Court in Minnesota.

The defendants are accused of conspiring to deprive church congregants of their rights and interfering with religious freedom inside a house of worship, reviving a case that was rejected last week by a magistrate judge, The New York Times reported. The indictment names nine defendants, including seven protesters, Lemon, and another journalist. Seven of those charged have appeared in court so far, and four were released Friday.

Trillions in lost money?

The Pentagon has NEVER passed an audit and our government cannot pass an audit but We The People are audited for $5 we received we can't account for? The double standards are outrageous and do no much harm to us the people who have been forced to foot the bill for the wasted money and fraud spending, and black budget projects. These agencies/departments that haven’t passed an audit, EVER, need to be closed down immediately! If their work is vital, send it to another agency. 

With approximately 450 agencies/departments, we could lose 80% and still function fine.

According to Bloomberg’s Anthony Carpaccio, the Department of Defense made $35 trillion in “accounting adjustments” in 2019, easily surpassing the $30.7 trillion in such adjustments recorded in 2018. Carpaccio notes that the number “dwarfs the $738 billion of defense-related funding in the latest U.S. budget, a spending plan that includes the most expensive weapons systems in the world including the F-35 jet as well as new aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines.” It’s also “larger than the entire U.S. economy and underscores the Defense Department’s continuing difficulty in balancing its books.”

So what are these accounting adjustments? Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says they represent “a lot of double, triple, and quadruple counting of the same money as it got moved between accounts” within the Pentagon. “A lot” may be an understatement: According to government data, there were 562,568 adjustments made in the Pentagon’s books in 2018. Why it matters: More broadly, the number highlights the persistent lack of internal financial controls at the Pentagon, which makes it extremely difficult to account properly for spending in the largest government budget. “Although it gets scant public attention compared with airstrikes, troop deployments, sexual assault statistics or major weapons programs, the reliability of the Pentagon’s financial statement is an indication of how effectively the military manages its resources considering that it receives over half of discretionary domestic spending,” Carpaccio says.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), who asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the issue, said the “combined errors, shorthand, and sloppy record-keeping by DoD accountants do add up to a number nearly 1.5 times the size of the U.S. economy,” and charged that the Pentagon “employs accounting adjustments like a contractor paints over mold. Their priority is making the situation look manageable, not solving the underlying problem.”

With that many agencies/departments, they don’t talk to each other, share info, and are WAY TOO involved in our daily lives. Our Founding Fathers created a SMALL, LIMITED government, not the huge mega employer. (The largest employer in the US is the federal government, think about that one). Most of the black hole the money entered is literally going to black budget projects dealing with other worldly Tech. YES UFO's/UAP's are involved in getting this lost money. A LOT went to companies like Lockheed Martin and other members of the companies used to create things from crashed found and traded to us "UFO'S" or SPACE CRAFTS from Other worlds. Our service members have a very special place in how this country runs, but I’d cancel the Pentagon’s funding (with the exception of pay for service members) if they cannot account for the Trillions for decades which add up to the $35 TRILLION (that would essentially pay off our National debt). Just think the tech they are hiding from us?

This is what lead to a more formal UFO/UAP disclosure and it's no secret why it's going to be Doge and ELON doing this! He of SPACE X after all would be the ideal person under the leadership of Donald Trump our President to make these records make sense, and dig as deep as needed to expose it all. This is where the fun begins.

Democrat Jamaal Bowman calls ELON MUSK A ‘Nazi’ and ‘thief’

Elon Musk threatens to sue after Democrat Jamaal Bowman calls him a ‘Nazi’ and ‘thief’ during TV appearance. This is NOT Freedom of Speech this is HATE comments, and Bowman belongs in PRISON. This moron is an EVIL leftist, and this guy is the same idiot who pulled the alarm in congress to hold up congress. Or did we forget? He's a proven idiot. But to call ELON or anyone on TV A ‘Nazi’ and ‘thief’ is beyond idiotic.

Elon Musk said he intends to file a lawsuit against former “Squad” Rep. Jamaal Bowman for calling him a “Nazi” and a “thief” this week on CNN. “I’ve had enough. Lawsuit inbound,” Musk, 53, wrote on X late Friday next to a clip of Bowman’s caustic remarks.

In his Thursday rant Bowman, 48 who was ousted in a primary last summer by a pro-Israel Democrat said the Department of Government Efficiency boss “doesn’t have” the necessary skills to spearhead the Trump administration’s cost-cutting crusade. “How do we know? 

Because they fired tens of thousands of people, was challenged in court. The court said the people have to go back, and now the people are coming back,” Bowman contended during a Thursday night segment on CNN. What he fails to mention is this was done by who? Liberal Judges, and like this means anything when we know this lawfair was going to happen? This Jamaal is a typical leftist idiotic racist elitist.

“He’s incompetent. He’s a thief. He’s a Nazi. And people don’t trust him.” Leftists accused the billionaire of making a “Nazi salute” while he addressed a crowd on Trump’s Inauguration Day in January. Groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have determined it was simply an “awkward gesture,” and Musk denied intentionally making a Nazi salute. Musk didn’t elaborate on any details of the planned lawsuit. However, he appears to be trying to pursue a defamation case against Bowman. Defamation cases have a legal high bar for public figures, because they are required to prove “actual malice” motivated a false statement against them. An outcry of conservatives had urged Musk to file a lawsuit against Bowman, such as Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah).

Remember by him clearly saying "He’s a Nazi" this isn't some vague connection! NO He literally said "He’s a Nazi" so now in court he's going to have to somehow provide proof that he is indeed a NAZI or This loon will be subject to possibly owing Elon many MILLIONS in damages. Man I hope Elon sues this fool into section poverty in the ghetto somewhere which is where he belongs.

The remarks by the former Bronx and Westchester County rep came during an exchange with Joe Borelli, the ex-top Republican on the New York City Council, who suggested that Democrats were manufacturing a lot of the protests that have dogged GOP town halls with constituents over recent weeks. “That’s not true. And this shows, again, the American people do not trust Elon Musk. And Elon Musk is incompetent in his position,” Bowman, who runs the super PAC Built to Win, countered. Near the end of the segment, CNN host Abby Phillips tried to draw distance from Bowman’s incendiary attack against Musk. “Former Congressman Bowman, I just have to say, just a second, I just have to say, your opinion about Elon Musk is your opinion about Elon Musk,” she said.

Elon’s mother Maye Musk, has publicly encouraged him to sue media outlets that suggested he made a Nazi salute during the inauguration day festivities. Back in January, the SpaceX and Tesla boss also publicly mused about suing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) for accusing him of doing a Sieg Heil. It is unclear if Musk still intends to sue Walz. The Post reached out to both Bowman and CNN for comment. Bowman served in the House of Representatives from 2021 to January 2025. He was ousted in a primary by Rep. George Latimer (D-NY), who campaigned aggressively against the former rep’s criticisms of Israel and lefty antics. The former congressman made national headlines in 2023 when he spuriously pulled a fire alarm in a House office building during a tense government shutdown fight. There was no fire at the time and the alarm was clearly marked when the former school principal pulled it.

Later, Bowman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for falsely pulling the alarm, paid a $1,000 fine and wrote an apology letter to the police. The GOP-led House also censure him over the move. Bowman was one of two “Squad” reps to lose a primary last year alongside former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) both racist, black elitists. Remember Cori Bush wanted to defund the police but spent countless of taxpayer money to make sure she had protection. Also was for Open Borders, Sanctuary Cities, and much more for helping criminals than keeping the good people out of harms way.

Disgraced James E. Dennehy ousted from FBI

The shake up at the FBI continue and after the Epstein file showdown this week it was clear to me that this was handled how it was to oust those keeping the information and not working with PAM & KASH and sure enough now we have the first name to drop, and he's the now ex an top agent at the F.B.I. folks. Now the New York field office said in an email Monday that he had been forced out of his job, and so he's done, toast, another swamp creature outed! 

His departure follows clashes with Justice Department officials over Trump administration directives. The veteran agent, James E. Dennehy, was told Friday to retire from his role leading the F.B.I.’s largest field office, delivering another blow to the senior ranks of the bureau. Mr. Dennehy, who had been running the office since September, had angered Trump administration officials by supporting bureau leaders who resisted turning over the names of those who investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Dennehy had also angered Attorney General Pam Bondi by what she claimed was the New York office’s failure to turn over all the investigative files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier charged with sex trafficking who killed himself in prison. Ms. Bondi provided no evidence to back up her assertion. “Late Friday, I was informed that I needed to put my retirement papers in today, which I just did,” Mr. Dennehy wrote Monday in an email to colleagues. “I was not given a reason for this decision. Regardless, I apologize to all of you for not being able to fulfill my commitment to you.” 

Mr. Dennehy’s departure comes after weeks of turmoil at the F.B.I. that saw nearly a dozen executives at headquarters removed unexpectedly, leaving a leadership vacuum and confusion on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Dennehy, who served for seven years as a U.S. Marine officer before joining the bureau in 2002, spent most of his career investigating or supervising counterintelligence cases, which, in essence, involved chasing spies rather than building criminal cases. But FOX Mulder he's not and folks he's one of the bad guys who has been in there doing the work of the wrong people. Before being named to head the agency’s flagship office in New York, he headed its office in Newark for two years. 

But he spent the bulk of his career in New York and at headquarters in Washington, including leading New York’s counterintelligence and cyber division. On Friday, Ms. Bondi said that Mr. Dennehy’s office had deliberately held back information sought by Justice Department headquarters. She wrote in a letter Thursday to the bureau’s new director, Kash Patel, that she had been “repeatedly assured by the F.B.I.” that she had been given a full set of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Mr. Epstein.

Her letter, however, suggested the F.B.I. office in New York had turned over only a small fraction of that paperwork. “When you and I spoke yesterday, you were just as surprised as I was to learn this new information,” her letter to Mr. Patel said. The letter imposed a Feb. 28 deadline for the F.B.I. to “deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office.” She also ordered “an immediate investigation into why my order to the F.B.I. was not followed.” 

In January, the acting leaders of the F.B.I., Brian Driscoll and Robert Kissane, refused to provide a list of personnel involved in the Jan. 6 cases. Emil Bove, the acting No. 2 in the Justice Department, accused the men of being insubordinate. Ultimately, the F.B.I. turned over the information. In a defiant and eloquent email, Mr. Dennehy came to their defense and urged his staff to “dig in” after the Trump administration targeted officials involved in the investigations into the Jan. 6 attack. He also praised the bureau’s interim leaders for defending its independence.

On Monday, he wrote that among the top qualities he would miss about the bureau was its independence. “We will not bend. We will not falter. We will not sacrifice what is right for anything or anyone,” he wrote.

Biden pardons most ever in a day

Sniffing Slow Joe Biden has just commuted roughly 1,500 sentences and pardons 39 people, most ever in a single day... The so called President is commuting the sentences of nearly 1,500 people who were released from prison and placed on home confinement during the coronavirus pandemic and is pardoning 39 Americans convicted of nonviolent crimes. It's the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history. The commutations announced Thursday are for people who have served out home confinement sentences for at least one year after they were released. Prisons were uniquely bad for spreading the virus and some inmates were released in part to stop the spread. At one point, 1 in 5 prisoners had COVID-19, according to a tally kept by The Associated Press.

Many of the pardons are for long-ago, non-violent drug offenses people maybe who were jailed under his very own Crime Bills? Hmmmm Among the pardoned is 39-year-old Emily Good Nelson of Indianapolis, convicted of non-violent drug offenses at 19. Since her release, the White House said she has completed her bachelor's and master's degrees, and has volunteered as a counselor at an in-patient psychiatric facility. Russell Thomas Portner, 74, of Washington state, is also among those pardoned for non-violent drug offenses. He served in the Army during the Vietnam War and earned a Bronze Star. Since his conviction, he has married, raised four children, run a business, and developed a reputation for generosity and community service, the White House said.

The full list of pardons and commutations is here.

"These actions represent the largest single-day grant of clemency in modern history," the White House said. Which means nothing as he's spent decades making sure he locked up these same people for such petty crimes and keeping them locked up. Now all these years later he's saying "yeah I'm removing that stain on your record..." Good job Joe... Bur El Sniffler of the Glue himself old slow JOE Biden said he would be taking more steps in the weeks ahead and would continue to review clemency petitions. The second largest single-day act of clemency was by Barack Obama, with 330, shortly before he left office in 2017.

"America was built on the promise of possibility and second chances," Mr. Biden said in a statement. "As president, I have the great privilege of extending mercy to people who have demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, restoring opportunity for Americans to participate in daily life and contribute to their communities, and taking steps to remove sentencing disparities for non-violent offenders, especially those convicted of drug offenses." 

Yeah right after what he's recorded of saying anyone with a ROCK should be sent to prison. But this was only for black people as he called them "Beyond the Pale" and he said he didn't want his kids raised in a "Jungle" well Hunter turned out to be a crack head loser. Dumb as a rock he smoked paid for his daddy, and CCP, Russian money. But let's continue as the clemency follows a broad pardon for his son deadbeat Hunter, who was prosecuted for gun and tax crimes, criticizing the Justice Department's handling of his son's case in his statement explaining the pardon. The president had previously said he would not pardon Hunter which we all knew was a lie from the day he said it.

One of Biden's closest buddies, former top aide Anita Dunn, said she agreed with his decision to pardon Hunter but she criticized the way in which the pardon happened. "I do not agree with the way it was done, I don't agree with the timing, and I don't agree, frankly, with the attack on our judicial system," Dunn said at The New York Times' annual DealBook summit. But listen Anita that's your friend, and he's a scumbag and he doesn't care his son gets away with crimes most would spend life in prison for. This is who Joe is and it's why he's got away with his crimes for decades... A Career politician and career criminal.

Joe is under pressure from advocacy groups to pardon broad swaths of people, including those on federal death row, before the Trump administration takes over in January. He's also weighing whether to issue preemptive pardons to those who investigated Trump's effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and are facing possible retribution when he takes office. Now you know this is happening and if he doesn't and let's them take the fall for what he also is involved in this for sure shows you how upset he was when he was told he couldn't run for a second term due to you know the thing. No brains in that head that worked. 

Essentially Biden is as close to being an actual Zombie at this point. But those pardoned Thursday had been convicted of nonviolent crimes such as drug offenses and turned their lives around, White House lawyers said. They include a woman who led emergency response teams during natural disasters; a church deacon who has worked as an addiction counselor and youth counselor; a doctoral student in molecular bio sciences; and a decorated military veteran.

So as of now ok no harm done but let's see how it goes and if Biden who had previously issued 122 commutations and 21 other pardons. Also broadly pardoned those convicted of use and simple possession of marijuana on federal lands and in the District of Columbia, and pardoned former U.S. service members convicted of violating a now-repealed military ban on consensual gay sex. hmmm Makes sense as he's been very open on the whole "gay sex" and transgender people since he became President. This is almost like he loves men who dresses like women? 

Chicks with... Well you know the thing.

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and 34 other lawmakers are urging the president to pardon environmental and human rights lawyer Steven Donziger, who was imprisoned or under house arrest for three years because of a contempt of court charge related to his work representing Indigenous farmers in a lawsuit against Chevron. Others are advocating for Mr. Biden to commute the sentences of federal death row prisoners. His attorney general, Merrick Garland, paused federal executions. Biden had said on the campaign trail in 2020 that he wanted to end the death penalty but he never did, and now, with Trump coming back into office, it's likely executions will resume. During his first term, Trump presided over an unprecedented number of federal executions, carried out during the height of the pandemic. 

While TRUMP is some how being blamed for this the record number was reached because the house holding Democrats ordered them. Trump had nothing to do with it as this is a "state" issue mostly, and it's been like this for a long time. 

For those who don't know how this works. The method of execution for federal prisoners is determined by the state where the conviction took place. If the state doesn't have the death penalty, the judge chooses a state that does if it's determined this person deserves the "death penalty" ... Where again it's not issued in said state. Remember it's the state-sanctioned punishment of executing an individual for a specific crime. 

More pardons are coming before Biden leaves office on Jan. 20, but it's not clear whether he'll take action to guard against possible prosecution by Trump, an untested use of the power. "My administration will continue reviewing clemency petitions to advance equal justice under the law, promote public safety, support rehabilitation and reentry, and provide meaningful second chances," Mr. Biden said in a statement. 

The president has been taking the idea seriously and has been thinking about it for as much as six months before the presidential election but has been concerned about the precedent it would set, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss internal discussions.

But those who received the pardons would have to accept them. New California Sen. Adam Schiff, who was the chairman of the congressional committee that investigated the violent Jan. 6 insurrection, said such a pardon from Mr. Biden would be "unnecessary," and that the president shouldn't be spending his waning days in office worrying about this. A president has the power to both pardon, in which a person is relieved of guilt and punishment, or commute a sentence, which reduces or eliminates the punishment but doesn't exonerate the wrongdoing. It's customary for a president to grant mercy at the end of his term, using the power of the office to wipe away records or end prison terms.

Before pardoning his son, Joe had repeatedly pledged not to do so. He said in a statement explaining his reversal that the prosecution had been poisoned by politics. The decision prompted criminal justice advocates and lawmakers to put additional public pressure on the administration to use that same power for everyday Americans. It wasn't a very popular move; only about 2 in 10 Americans approved of his decision, according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. 

"The President's categorical approach to clemency has also inspired leaders across the country to take similar action," the White House said Thursday. "Over ten states and localities, including Maryland and Massachusetts, have issued categorical clemency for marijuana convictions, impacting hundreds of thousands of people and allowing individuals to move past their convictions and move on with their daily lives."

Trump election interference case Dropped!

Don't know about you folks but Trump was wrong about one thing! I will never get tired of seeing our side win! LOL Now hear this! The Judge grants Jack Smith request to dismiss Jan. 6 charges against Trump... After the appeal was dropped in the Florida docs case Trump says lawfare against him was a 'political hijacking,' but says he 'persevered against all odds, and WON' So yes he did as now a judge has dropped again all the charges against President-elect Donald Trump in the D.C. case against him, following a request that Special Counsel Jack Smith made on Monday.

The decision concerns the investigation into the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach. Fox News Digital previously learned of Smith's request earlier on Monday. "The Government has moved to dismiss the Superseding Indictment without prejudice," U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a decision. "Defendant does not oppose the Motion…and the court will grant it." Jack also filed a motion to drop his appeal in his classified records case against Trump a case that was tossed in July by federal Judge Aileen Cannon. 

Jude Cannon ruled Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel. The moves come after Smith had already filed a motion to vacate all deadlines in the 2020 election interference case against Trump in Washington, D.C. a widely expected move, but one that stopped short of dropping the case against Trump completely. Smith had said his team planned to give an updated report on the official status of the case against Trump on Dec. 2. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in the case and took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing on the basis of presidential immunity. The high court ruled that Trump was immune from prosecution for official presidential acts, forcing Smith to file a new indictment. Trump pleaded not guilty to those new charges, too. Trump's attorneys have been seeking to have the election interference charges dropped in Washington, D.C., alleging that Smith was appointed unlawfully.

"The American People re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again. Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law," Trump spokesman and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement. "The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country." Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges stemming from both of Smith’s investigations.

Smith is expected to resign as special counsel before Trump takes office. Trump posted to his Truth Social Monday afternoon that the cases against him "are empty and lawless and should never have been brought." "These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought. Over $100 Million Dollars of Taxpayer Dollars has been wasted in the Democrat Party’s fight against their Political Opponent, ME," Trump posted. "Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before." Although the case will still go forward for Trump’s two co-defendants, valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira, the order satisfies Smith’s request to terminate an appeal in the case as it concerns Trump. In both cases, Smith cited Trump’s upcoming inauguration and Department of Justice guidelines that prohibit the prosecution of sitting presidents. Smith also moved to dismiss Trump’s election meddling case without prejudice. Smith was contesting Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the case in the classified materials case, which found that the special counsel had been appointed illegally.

Liberals clung to hope that the appeal would be successful, claiming that Judge Cannon’s decision counters 50 years of prior rulings regarding special counsel regulations, and the court has previously reversed one of her decisions. “Nonetheless, it brings to an end for Trump a serious case focused largely on his conduct after leaving the White House. It was potentially the stronger of Smith’s two cases after a Supreme Court ruling that determined former presidents retain broad immunity for their conduct while in office. Prosecutors brought both Espionage Act and obstruction of justice charges against Trump after he repeatedly refused requests to return White House records, including defying a subpoena,” The Hill reported.

Trump said "state Prosecutors and District Attorneys, such as Fani Willis and her lover, Nathan Wade (who had absolutely zero experience in cases such as this, but was paid MILLIONS, enough for them to take numerous trips and cruises around the globe!), Letitia James, who inappropriately, unethically, and probably illegally, campaigned on ‘GETTING TRUMP’ in order to win Political Office, and Alvin Bragg, who himself never wanted to bring this case against me, but was forced to do so by the Justice Department and the Democrat Party."

🚨 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to drop President-elect Trump’s classified documents case in Florida pic.twitter.com/lTsKthn5FB

— Martin Walsh (@martinwalsh__) November 26, 2024

Trump reportedly has a plan in place to fire the entire team of Jack Smith, including the prosecutor himself, and investigate the results of the previous election in which he was defeated by President Joe Biden. The president-elect plans to even get rid of the career attorneys who are typically protected from political retribution, The Washington Post reported. Trump “wants to clean out ‘the bad guys, the people who went after me,’” a source close to the president-elect said. The special prosecutor’s team consists of dozens of attorneys, FBI agents, and staff who were likely assigned to the cases and did not choose to be on his team, the report said. “President Trump campaigned on firing rogue bureaucrats who have engaged in the illegal weaponization of our American justice system, and the American people can expect he will deliver on that promise,” Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary for the president-elect, said to The Post.

“House Republicans previously told Justice Department officials that anyone who had worked on the Trump cases with Smith should preserve all of their communications in a move that signaled that Smith, among others, could be targeted by congressional investigators,” the report said. “Trump also apparently plans to use the DOJ to investigate the 2020 election in which he lost to President Joe Biden but has continued to claim that his loss was due to widespread cheating. Many investigations have found no proof of the widespread voter fraud Trump and his GOP allies claimed,” it said. Smith is likely to step down from his position after ending his cases against President-elect Donald Trump, according to reports. A Justice Department source told CNN that Smith is in talks with DOJ leaders about how best to wind down the Jan. 6 case as well as an appeal of U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling over the summer to throw out his classified documents case against the soon-to-be 47th president.

“Trump has threatened to fire Smith, but Smith expects to be gone before Trump takes office,” CNN reported. “The talks between Smith and DOJ leaders extend beyond Trump’s criminal cases to questions about what to do with other defendants in the classified documents case as well as the special counsel’s office and what happens to its budget and staff,” the outlet continued. Smith is required to submit a report on his work to Attorney General Merrick Garland. It remains unclear whether the timing of Smith’s departure will be affected if the report needs to be reviewed and approved by the intelligence community, according to sources familiar with the discussions, CNN said. Smith is working to finalize the report before Trump takes office, as Garland will need to approve it and decide whether any part of it will be released publicly, one source said. The New York Times was the first to report Smith’s plans to resign from his post.

As president, Trump is afforded protections against prosecution that he didn’t have as a private citizen. Longstanding Justice Department policy dictates that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for crimes, and a Supreme Court ruling this summer confirmed that Trump has “absolute” immunity from prosecution for actions taken within his core constitutional powers as president, CNN said. Before his departure, Smith will need to determine how to resolve the two criminal cases he initiated against Trump. In Florida, Smith has appealed Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case, which found that Smith was unconstitutionally appointed as special counsel and that the funding for his office also violated the law. In Washington, D.C., Smith’s team is moving forward with the criminal case accusing Trump of orchestrating a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election following the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, CNN noted.

Michael Cohen hilariously trolled

Michael Cohen hilariously trolled with face filters during TikTok live.. You can't make this up folks. This is really just pure KARMA!

This crazy man just doesn't want to stop right? Well I think someone at least found a way to have fun with him as you can see in the video, and I for one hope more, and more people aim their sights on trolling him in this very funny way. As he won't go away and leave our President alone! Let's make him know we don't want his kind around so make it funny, and keep it online and clean... But I say have fun!

"Can we stop with that?" Donald Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen was made to look like a turkey — literally — during a livestream on TikTok. The 58-year-old attorney fumed as TikTok users added digital filters to his face against his will, including a turkey headpiece, an Elvis-like hairdo, green laser eyes and more.

RFK Jr. dropping out of the race help Trump?

OK So rumor has it that following a controversy filled campaign that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has ran and his poll numbers compared to Trump are reportedly planning to suspend their presidential bid. He is considering endorsing former President Donald Trump and reportedly hopeful that he might secure the position of Trump’s health secretary if he wins. Kennedy was an environmental lawyer known for his work cleaning up the Hudson River with a storied last name who in recent years has become known for spreading conspiracy theories about medicine, including vaccines and anti-depressants. He used the popularity he gained as an anti-vaxxer during the pandemic to briefly challenge President Joe Biden in the Democratic primary before announcing an independent bid for president in October 2023.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Address to the Nation https://t.co/Wf4xt12GSX

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) August 23, 2024

He had been seen as a potential spoiler for both candidates, given his connection to the Democratic Kennedy dynasty as well as his embrace of the anti-establishment and anti-vaccine views held by certain segments of the GOP. He was polling around 10 percent nationally for the better part of 2024, and even higher in some swing state polls. But he struggled to get on the ballot in many states, though his campaign maintains that he has secured enough signatures to do so in all but Kentucky, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. And after Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, he seemed to hold less sway among voters who were turned off by Biden. His poll numbers consequently cratered to under 5 percent.

Despite Kennedy’s flagging national numbers, polling suggests his exit from the race could still help Trump, with whom he’s become decidedly more cozy in recent months. Trump wouldn’t have to win a lot of Kennedy’s potential voters to make a difference in key swing states; if the race is as close as it was in 2020, Trump gaining even a fraction of a percent from Kennedy could make the difference. Trump probably has the most to gain from Kennedy dropping out. Kennedy has increasingly endeared himself to Republican voters while struggling to get the same support among Democrats and independents. And polls conducted in recent months, including since Biden dropped out of the race, suggest that Trump would pick up more of Kennedy’s supporters. 

Any margin would likely be small but potentially significant and his endorsement of the GOP leader Donald Trump could be the tide turning moment in this election. The Republicans tend to see Kennedy more favorably than Democrats, and those with favorable views toward him tend to have more favorable opinions of Trump than of Harris, according to a July AP-NORC poll conducted before Biden dropped out. Several national polls conducted since Harris became the presumptive nominee have also tested a race between Harris, Trump, and Kennedy, as well as a two-way race between Harris and Trump. Trump tends to get a bigger bump than Harris when Kennedy is excluded. 

In an August Reuters/Ipsos poll of registered voters, for instance, Harris received 42 percent support, Trump 37 percent, and Kennedy 4 percent, while 15 percent supported another candidate, weren’t sure who they would support, or weren’t sure if they would vote at all. But when voters were pushed to select either Trump or Harris, 49 percent backed Harris and 47 percent Trump a 10 percentage point boost for Trump.

Trump had a similar edge with Kennedy voters in a July Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll. In a three-way contest, Harris earned 44 percent support, Trump 47 percent, and Kennedy 10 percent. In a head-to-head poll, Harris earned 48 percent and Trump 52 percent. It may seem like the advantage Trump gains when Kennedy is out of the picture is relatively small. But Biden won in 2020 by exceedingly narrow margins in six key battleground states; in Arizona, it was by less than 11,000 votes. On the margin, Kennedy’s supporters could make a difference, depending on where they’re distributed. In Arizona, for example, Kennedy is still polling at about 6 percent, according to The Hill’s polling average. 

Of course, he might not actually win that large a vote share if he decides to stay in the race; third-party candidates tend to poll much better than they actually perform on Election Day, when their supporters are confronted with the reality that their preferred candidate won’t win. But that vote share would have been more than enough to have swung the 2020 results in the other direction.

The same is true in other swing states, where polling suggests a very tight race. An early August New York Times/Siena survey of registered voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin found Harris leading Trump 46 percent to 43 percent when respondents were given all third-party candidates to choose from. When asked to pick between just Harris and Trump, the gap tightened to 48 and 46 percent, respectively. Those states are likely to be key, given their high electoral college vote count and in most scenarios, Harris would need all three to win. Harris’s entry into the race likely limits the impact of Kennedy’s exit While RFK Jr.s supporters may still be able to make an important impact on the margins, their power to drag the Democratic nominee’s polling down seems to have diminished substantially.

Before Harris became the nominee, there was a much larger than usual number of disaffected voters who didn’t like either Biden or Trump and just wanted someone anyone as an alternative. A theoretical no-name candidate as an alternative to Biden and Trump got about 10 percent in Ipsos polling conducted earlier this year.

Kennedy provided an alternative for a while. But when Harris stepped into the POTUS 2024 picture, that undermined his appeal at least among Democrats. “There were some wavering Democratic voters who just thought Biden was too old, or they didn’t like him, and Harris is just a more appealing candidate for those kinds of people,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Kondik said it’s possible that Biden may have ended up winning back those voters anyway if he had stayed in the race and had a typical post-Democratic National Convention bump. But at this point, Kondik said, he would not be surprised if the third-party vote share in the election ends up being about 2 percent of the electorate, as it was in 2012 and 2020. 

Before Harris became the nominee, political analysts were projecting that it would be closer to the nearly 6 percent share third parties got in 2016, which some analysts argued doomed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. “For all the talk about third parties in this election, a combination of the most prominent third-party candidate dropping out, in addition to the increased favor-ability of the two major party nominees, means that there’s just going to be less of a market for third party candidates,” he said.

Kennedy could make more of an impact as a surrogate for Trump. He could help the former president with certain demographics, such as young men who listen to prominent personalities such as Joe Rogan, who has praised Kennedy. But the Trump campaign might also be wary of attaching itself to Kennedy’s brand: If the brain worm and the bear incident weren’t enough, he has been disavowed by members of his own famous family and now peddles conspiracy theories not just about the Covid-19 vaccine, but his father’s killer, 5G cell phone transmission, fraud in the 2004 election, and more. “The Democratic refrain against Trump and his running mate JD Vance is that they’re ‘weird,’” Kondik said. “Kennedy doesn’t make them less weird.” This from a person who supports boys bathrooms with Tampons, Abortions until 9 months, Drag Queen reading hour with Elementary kids... 

Weird? Because they're loving husband, fathers, and want to make this country the best it can be. Weird because Trump, Vance, and RFK Jr love our country and want to help our Citizens and not illegal criminals. 

Yeah we should be as weird as Trump, Vance, RFK Jr... We need more weird people like that and less brain dead morons like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Barrack & Mike Obama, Bill & The She devil known as Hillary Clinton. Oh and rest of the liberal tards in Congress, Senate and voting class.

Robert De Niro proves he's a crybaby liar

As you can see this guy has lost his mind! Now who really is Robert De Niro you ask? Well he's a liberal leftist crybaby loser... But Robert Anthony De Niro (born August 17, 1943) was an American actor and film producer. Now he will forever be known as the man who had a panic attack trying to act tough in the media talking smack about Donald Trump and accusing Trump of being the bully! When it's been Robert who's been relentless trashing Trump at all cost! But if Trump says anything back both the crooked and corrupt media gives a spin and try's to make it like Donald is the badguy when it was Robert depends wearing loser De Niro.

The ones actor best known for his collaborations with Martin Scorsese, was at some point before he came down with that terminal illness known as TDS as a talented actor and perhaps he should have stayed an actor and out of politics but oh well that ship has sailed.

De Niro is the recipient of various accolades, including two Academy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, the Cecil B. DeMille Award, and a Screen Actors Guild Life Achievement Award. He received the Kennedy Center Honors in 2009, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom from U.S. President Barack Obama in 2016. Which explains his hate for Donald Trump now doesn't it? Notice how all these people who attack Trump are connected to "Obama, Biden, Epstein, Diddy" and that escaped lunatic "Hillary Clinton" and her cheating hubby "Bill Clinton" or as we like to call him "The Stain Maker." Because yes there is the Rainmaker and then there was Bill Clinton.

So as if Donald Trump didn't have enough on his plate with these bogus cases from all these leftists gold diggers, nutjobs, conmen, liars, crooked Judges and the swamp from the legal system! But there is always more morons who still believe the lies coming out of the MSM like this dipshit Robert De Niro. This fool set an all time low for stupid actors.

This tops Johnny Depp asking what he did in 2015 and I don't know now who's got worst mental issues Joe Biden, Mark Hamill or Robert De Niro? But than it became clear this is all because of that Epstein / Diddy connection these people all share that Trump is against.

Remember folks TRUMP went and was the ONLY person who spoke out against Epstein in the mid 2000's when they were investigating Epstein for human trafficking and possibly more. But I do love when stupid people like Robert De Niro here gets off and starts throwing rocks at people like Trump.. Boy I sure do hope he don't have some nasty bones in that closet of his! But of course he do... Let's look at this flower child cry baby cupcake from Califonication. He's not a real New Yorker he's soft like a prostitute in San Francisco.

Legal issues

In February 1998, De Niro was held for questioning by French police in connection with an international prostitution ring. De Niro denied any involvement, and later filed a complaint against the examining magistrate for "violation of secrecy in an investigation". He stated he would not return to France, but has since traveled there several times including for the 2011 Cannes Film Festival.

In 1999, De Niro threatened to sue the owners of "De Niro's Supper Club" in Vancouver, under section 3 of the BC Privacy Act. The restaurant subsequently changed its name to "Section (3)".

In 2006, the trust that owns De Niro's Gardiner estate sued the town to have its property tax assessment reduced, arguing that $6 million was too high and should be compared only with similar properties in Ulster County, where Gardiner is located. The town, which had been comparing its value to similar estates in Dutchess County, across the Hudson River, and Connecticut's Litchfield County, where many other affluent New York residents maintain estates on large properties, won in State Supreme Court. In 2014, the trust's lawyers appealed the decision and the town was unsure if it should continue to defend the suit because of financial limitations (it would have earned far less in payments on the increased taxes than it had spent on legal costs). 

This angered many residents, who initially sympathized with De Niro, and some proposed to raise money privately to help the town continue the suit. The dispute was publicized by The New York Times. "When he (De Niro) read about it on Election Day, he went bananas," due to the negative publicity, said Gardiner town councilman Warren Wiegand. He was unaware that a lawsuit was filed; the trust's accountants took responsibility citing fiduciary duty. Shortly afterwards, De Niro directed his lawyer, Tom Harvey, to withdraw the suit and reimburse the town's legal bills of $129,000. Harvey conveyed to Wiegand that "De Niro didn't want to screw the town".

In August 2019, De Niro's company Canal Productions filed a $6-million lawsuit against former employee Graham Chase Robinson, for breaching her fiduciary duties and violating New York's faithless servant doctrine by misusing company funds and watching hours of Netflix during work hours. In October 2019, Robinson filed a lawsuit against De Niro, claiming harassment and gender discrimination. In November 2023 the jury found De Niro not personally liable for gender discrimination but his production company was ordered to pay her $1.2 million in damages.

Trump gets big 9-0 win in Colorado case!

After all the leftist b/s, fake news, lies and hype to push the latest agenda to throw Trump off the Colorado ballot finally gets it's resolution and well it turns into a big win at the Supreme Court in the 14th Amendment case for Donald Trump. 

The Supreme Court Monday ruled that former and soon to be again President Donald Trump could not be removed from the ballot in Colorado or any other state for that matter in a sweeping and historic 9-0 ruling that threw aside a lawsuit claiming that he disqualified himself from office because of his actions on January 6, 2021.

In a repudiation of the notion that Trump’s actions left him ineligible under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban,” a unanimous court ruled that an individual state could not dump the former president from the ballot.

Remember he has NOT been accused, taken to trial or convicted of an "insurrection" which once again shows at how low these people will go to cheat. The opinion reversed a stunning decision last year from Colorado’s top court that found Trump engaged in an insurrection because of his remarks outside the White House before the 2021 attack on the US Capitol. Those actions, the state court ruled, violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and left Trump ineligible to appear on the state’s ballot.

Since then, both Maine and Illinois also moved to take Trump off the ballot. Monday’s Supreme Court decision appeared certain to shut down those and other efforts to remove the frontrunner for the GOP nomination from the ballot. “States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” the court’s unsigned majority opinion read. “But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency.”

There was no equivocation in the Supreme Court’s short opinion: States do not have the power to remove a federal candidate especially a president from the ballot under the Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban.” It is Congress, the court wrote, that can enforce the provision, not states. “The notion that the Constitution grants the states freer rein than Congress to decide how Section 3 should be enforced with respect to federal officer is simply implausible,” the court’s unsigned opinion read.

What that means is that the impact of the decision will sweep far wider than the controversy at issue in Colorado. It means that any state would be overstepping its power by trying to knock Trump off the ballot a position that will almost certainly shut down similar “insurrectionist” lawsuits across the country. In that sense, the court’s opinion was a significant victory for Trump, vanquishing a legal theory that has for months threatened his viability for a second term.

The high court’s opinion went farther than shutting down state enforcement of the insurrectionist ban. It appeared to make it much harder for it to be enforced at the federal level as well. And that is where the unity on the court split apart, with four justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson asserting that their colleagues went too far. Barrett is a conservative Trump nominee and the other three are members of the liberal wing.

The court’s opinion, the three liberal justices wrote in a concurrence, “shuts the door on other potential means of federal enforcement,” by requiring Congress to act to pass legislation first, something that’s highly unlikely. By doing so, the three wrote, “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” The move appeared to head off a concern that a narrow ruling from the court could lead to a messy confrontation in Congress when the electoral votes are counted in 2025. A group of legal experts feared an outcome that would leave unclear whether lawmakers opposed to Trump could attempt to disqualify him after the election.




The Supreme Court’s opinion doesn’t directly address whether Trump’s actions on January 6 qualified as an “insurrection” skirting an issue that the courts in Colorado wrestled with. The unsigned opinion noted that lower courts in Colorado found Trump’s remarks before the attack on the US Capitol qualified as engaging in an insurrection within the meaning of the Constitution. But the court’s unsigned opinion didn’t return to that judgment direction. That tracks with what experts had predicted would happen, that the justices would seek to decide the ballot case in a more narrow way without saying much of anything about Trump’s actions.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the liberal watchdog group that filed the suit, focused on the point in a statement after the decision. “While the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump back on the ballot on technical legal grounds, this was in no way a win for Trump,” Noah Bookbinder, the group’s president said. “The Supreme Court had the opportunity in this case to exonerate Trump, and they chose not to do so.”

Barrett devoted more than half of her one-page concurrence to urging the public to look past the fact that four of the court’s members herself included disagreed with how broadly their colleagues decided the case. The conservative justice stressed that although she and the three liberal justices were at odds with their other colleagues, “this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.” “The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turn the national temperature down, not up,” Barrett wrote and continued “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”

The Colorado dispute was one of several high-profile Trump-related cases before the court this term, and its inclusion on the court’s docket likely contributed to more lukewarm poll numbers for the justices. A poll taken last month around the time that the case was heard showed the public’s approval rating of the high court standing at just 40%. The court’s three liberals Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson sharply criticized the majority for the breadth of the opinion. The issue of Trump’s eligibility could have been decided simply, they said, by ruling that states can’t enforce the insurrectionist ban on their own.

“In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint,” they wrote, the court’s unsigned opinion, “abandons that course.” The three focused their ire on the fact that the majority opinion limited federal enforcement of the insurrection ban as well as state enforcement. That decision, they said, wasn’t before the Supreme Court in the case and would “insulate all alleged insurrectionists” from future challenges.

No justice signed their name to take responsibility for writing the opinion keeping Trump on the ballot. To begin with, the court handed down what’s known as a “per curiam” opinion, a Latin term that translates to “by the court.” Such opinions are relatively rare and are sometimes used to signal consensus even though they are not always unanimous. Per curium opinions are “unsigned,” which means that unlike most opinions, the public doesn’t know who wrote them and can’t always glean the vote count.

Per curiam opinions have faced criticism from some quarters for that very reason: They allow the court to resolve controversial issues without explicitly making clear their authorship. Among the most notable per curiam opinions in the court’s history was the Bush v. Gore decision, which effectively settled the 2000 election for President George W. Bush. Meanwhile, the “concurring” opinions at times looked likely sharply worded dissents. So despite the unity of the per curiam judgment there was considerable disagreement about some of the court’s reasoning.

Here’s what to know about the outcome and what it means bottom line is Trump will appear on ballots... Period!