Despite repeated usurpations of presidential power and violations of civil liberties, Congress has largely failed to hold the administration accountable, fostering a climate of impunity that has directly led to unauthorized military actions. While individual representatives express support for impeachment, their actions are stymied by procedural excuses and a lack of leadership will, leaving the American people disappointed. This congressional inaction, coupled with public disillusionment, has diminished the popularity of Democrats, and voters face a critical choice in upcoming elections to replace those who have demonstrated a lack of courage.
Read More
Democrats are increasingly vocal in their demand for immediate action to restrain President Trump, expressing deep concern over his actions and their potential consequences for the United States. The sentiment circulating is that the president’s behavior is increasingly out of control, leading to a growing urgency for Congress to step in and exert its oversight authority.
There’s a strong feeling that the nation is on a dangerous trajectory, with some drawing parallels to historical examples of global powers that succumbed to financial mismanagement and overextension. The current levels of military spending are seen as a significant drain, potentially leading the U.S.… Continue reading
The prospect of an executive emergency order granting a president extraordinary control over elections is a deeply unsettling one, and a recently surfaced draft order has understandably sparked significant concern and debate. At its core, this draft appears to be an attempt to bypass established legal and constitutional processes, asserting presidential authority in areas traditionally reserved for states and Congress. The language within the order suggests a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate disregard, for the separation of powers that underpins the American system of government.
One of the most striking elements of the draft is its provision mandating that voters re-register anew for future elections, and that this registration must occur in person at specific county offices.… Continue reading
Despite the Supreme Court striking down tariffs imposed under emergency laws, President Donald Trump asserted that the ruling inadvertently granted him expanded presidential powers. He claimed this expanded authority allows for the imposition of “terrible” actions against foreign countries, particularly those he believes have taken advantage of the U.S. The president suggested that while the court may have disallowed license fees, licenses inherently involve fees, hinting at future implementation. Furthermore, Trump indicated that existing tariffs, not affected by the ruling, could now be utilized in more potent and assertive ways.
Read More
Donald Trump has demanded that Netflix “immediately” dismiss Susan Rice, citing her remarks on a podcast as grounds for her termination and warning of “consequences” if the streaming service fails to comply. Rice’s comments, which suggested Democrats would pursue an “accountability agenda” against corporations that circumvented regulations during the Trump administration, were amplified by far-right activists who alleged she was threatening half the country. These calls for Rice’s dismissal coincide with Netflix’s ongoing efforts to finalize an $83 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery’s studios and streaming businesses, a deal facing a crucial shareholder vote.
Read More
According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, a majority of Americans believe President Trump has overstepped his authority during his first year back in office. The poll revealed that 54% of respondents felt he had gone too far, while only 37% thought he had the balance right. The survey also highlighted disapproval of Trump’s handling of various issues, including foreign trade, the economy, healthcare, and immigration, with the rising cost of living being a major concern for many voters. These findings come as inflation continues to rise, contrasting with the president’s claims of a robust economy.
Read More
Tina Peters, the former Mesa County clerk, is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence for crimes related to the 2020 election. She was found guilty of multiple counts including attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy, and official misconduct for her role in allowing unauthorized access to voting machine data. Despite efforts from Donald Trump, including public pressure campaigns and threats of intervention, Peters remains incarcerated. The Justice Department has initiated a review of Peters’ case, and could potentially seek her transfer or early release.
Read More
President Trump announced his intention to pardon Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk serving a state sentence for election-related crimes. Peters, convicted of state charges including attempting to influence a public servant, was prosecuted in a Republican county, which has led to significant criticism. Despite the president’s claim that the pardon is related to alleged election fraud, Colorado officials, including Secretary of State Jena Griswold and Attorney General Phil Weiser, assert that the president lacks the constitutional authority to pardon state crimes. While Peters’ attorney argues that the president may have the power to pardon in this case, legal experts widely disagree, citing that the presidential pardon power is limited to federal offenses.
Read More
Trump has no power to undo Biden’s autopen pardons. It’s a fundamental principle of our legal system, and frankly, it seems almost too obvious to state. Once a pardon is granted, that’s it; it’s done. No president, no Congress, no court can simply revoke it. It’s a settled legal fact.
Even if we were to entertain the possibility of Trump attempting such a thing, it wouldn’t hold water. He might *want* to undo Biden’s pardons, but the authority to do so simply isn’t there. The idea that a president could arbitrarily undo another president’s pardons, especially after the fact, would create utter chaos and instability.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court is set to hear the case of Trump v. Slaughter, which concerns President Trump’s request to fire independent agency officials at will, potentially dismantling the precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor. This case, driven by the “unitary executive theory,” aims to consolidate presidential power by removing protections for officials in agencies like the FTC and the Federal Reserve, impacting areas such as economic regulation and consumer safety. The outcome is expected to favor Trump, allowing the president more control and challenging the historical understanding of independent agencies. However, the court may make an exception for the Federal Reserve. This move is part of a larger conservative legal movement’s efforts to limit the power of agencies and reshape the balance of power.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood