A history professor whose
formula has successfully predicted the outcome of all but one
presidential election since 1984 has indicated that President Joe Biden is tracking to win in 2024.
Allan Lichtman, who has been teaching at American University for five decades, uses a system of 13 “keys” to the White House to make his call.
In a recent interview with the Guardian,
Lichtman noted that Biden has already got two keys under his belt: the
incumbency key, and the contest key, after he faced no serious
contenders for the incumbent party nomination.
“That’s
two keys off the top. That means six more keys would have to fall to
predict his defeat. A lot would have to go wrong for Biden to lose,”
Lichtman said.
He will likely make his final prediction in August, according to the Guardian.
The
other keys, which are structured as true or false questions, include
whether or not the incumbent candidate has been tainted by a major
scandal, whether there has been social unrest during the term, whether
the incumbent has achieved major military successes or failures, and
whether or not the challenging candidate is charismatic or a national
hero.
The only blemish on Lichtman’s record is in 2000, when he predicted that Al Gore would defeat George W. Bush.
But
Lichtman claims that call was nonetheless correct, since Gore won the
popular vote. He contends that Gore would have won the election was he
not wronged in Florida, which Bush won by a razor thin margin, prompting
a recount dispute and highly controversial Supreme Court decision.
He was among a select few who predicted former President Donald Trump’s win in 2016...
As with polls six months out from an election, take this with more than a ton of salt, and keep doing the necessary hard work to win (volunteer, donate, vote). But, let's face it: he does have a better record than any polling outfit we've ever seen.
“I’m profoundly disturbed about the apparent direction of the court,”
J. Michael Luttig told me. “I now believe that it is unlikely Trump
will ever be tried for the crimes he committed in attempting to overturn
the 2020 election.”
I called Luttig, a former federal judge with extensive
conservative credentials, to solicit his reaction to this week’s Supreme
Court hearing
over Donald Trump’s demand for absolute immunity from prosecution for
any crimes related to his insurrection attempt. On Thursday, Luttig posted a thread
critiquing the right-wing justices for their apparent openness to
Trump’s arguments—but that thread was legalistic and formal, so I
figured Luttig had a lot more to say.
And did
he ever. Luttig lacerated the right-wing justices for harboring a
“radical vision” of the American presidency, and pronounced himself
“gravely” worried that Trump will never face accountability for alleged
crimes committed in attempting to destroy U.S. democracy through
extensive procedural corruption and the naked incitement of mob
violence.
Luttig’s
fear that Trump may very well skate centers on the lines of questioning
from the court’s right-wing majority about Special Counsel Jack Smith’s
ongoing prosecution of Trump. As many observers noted,
those justices appeared largely uninterested in the question before
them—whether Trump’s alleged crimes related to the insurrection
constituted official presidential acts that are immune from prosecution
after leaving office.
Instead, the justices dwelled on the
supposed future consequences of prosecuting presidents for crimes, and
seemed to want to place some limits on that eventuality. That suggests
the justices will kick the case back to lower courts to determine
whether some definition of official presidential acts must be protected
(and whether Trump’s specific acts qualify).
The corrupt Republican Supreme Court already showed its hand by accepting an appeal on what was a slam-dunk finding by the appeals court, then dragging out hearings until the end of its term in April. That they appear at best to be headed toward a mixed bag of opinions and possibly remanding it back to the trial court means more delay and judicial obfuscation in service to one Malignant Loser.
Dueling
demonstrations on the UCLA campus Sunday resulted in skirmishes between
groups showing support for an encampment of pro-Palestinian protesters
and counter-protesters rallying around the university's Jewish students.
A
group of demonstrators "breached a barrier that the university had
established separating two groups of protestors on our campus, resulting
in physical altercations," according to a statement from Mary Osako,
vice chancellor of UCLA strategic communications. "UCLA has a long
history of being a place of peaceful protest, and we are heartbroken
about the violence that broke out."
The
Westwood campus protests followed similar demonstrations on the campus
at the University of Southern California, amid a controversy over the
school's decision to cancel the valedictorian's speech. The USC protests
also experienced some minor clashes in the crowd, along with dozens of
arrests.
It's unclear
if anybody was arrested at UCLA on Sunday. Video showed most of the
confrontations involved pushing and yelling. Some minor injuries were
reported...
When legitimate protests turn violent, the reaction is for police to be called in and start cracking heads. That serves no one except some police who like to beat up people and some people who like being beat up for the cameras. All that is needed is for someone, somewhere to be seriously injured or killed and the fat will be in the fire. The evil Hamas terrorist attack and Netanyahu's unrestrained response now have consequences that have washed up on our shores.
"...Rather than grapple with the situation at
hand — a defeated president worked with his allies to try to overturn
the results of an election he lost, eventually summoning a mob to try to
subvert the peaceful transfer of power — the Republican-appointed
majority worried about hypothetical prosecutions against hypothetical
presidents who might try to stay in office against the will of the
people if they aren’t placed above the law.
"It
was a farce befitting the absurdity of the situation. Trump has asked
the Supreme Court if he is, in effect, a king. And at least four members
of the court, among them the so-called originalists, have said, in
essence, that they’ll have to think about it." -- Jamelle Bouie, New York Effing Times, on the corrupt Republican Supreme Court's review of the Malignant Loser's claims of absolute immunity from crimes committed while in office (see also QOTD, below).
“The Framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They
knew how to. And, you know, not so
surprising, they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above
the law. Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch
and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” -- Justice Elena Kagan at yesterday's hearing at the corrupt Republican Supreme Court on the Malignant Loser's claim of absolute immunity for crimes committed while in office.
____________________
“If he’s not covered by the criminal law, he can’t be impeached for violating it at all.” -- Justice Sonia Sotomayor at the same hearing pointing out the absurdity of the Malignant Loser's argument.
A genuinely historic event takes place at the Supreme Court on Thursday. The justices hear arguments on Donald Trump's claim that he is immune
from prosecution after leaving office for any of his official acts
while he was president. Specifically, Trump claims that the steps he
took to block the certification of Joe Biden's election were part of his
official duties and that he thus cannot be criminally prosecuted.
The
question of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution after
leaving office has never been decided by the Supreme Court. [snip]
Trump is making a far broader argument for immunity. He contends that he
cannot be prosecuted — ever — for his "official acts" as president
unless he is first impeached, convicted by the Senate and removed from
office. He was impeached twice, but the Senate failed to muster the
two-thirds vote needed to convict. So, were the Supreme Court to embrace
Trump's argument, it would mean, given modern political realities, that
he and future presidents would likely be immune from prosecution after
leaving office...
But, to further tilt the table away from accountability for the Malignant Loser before the election, the corrupt Republican SCOTUS issued a stay on Special Counsel Jack Smith's January 6 coup trial, meaning the trial which had been delayed already (it was to have begun in early March) is in limbo until a decision. Even if the Malignant Loser is found not to have absolute immunity, by the time a decision is rendered and the stay lifted, it would be highly unlikely for a trial to be concluded before November.
The former tabloid publisher David Pecker will
continue testimony at Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial on
Thursday, following his testimony earlier in the week.
Pecker,
the former chief executive of American Media, which publishes the
National Enquirer, testified that he used his position to help Trump
kill negative stories that threatened his campaign.
After
Trump announced his run for presidency, he invited Pecker and Michael
Cohen, Trump’s former fixer, to a meeting at Trump Tower, Pecker said.
Trump said he was looking for a media insider who could help suppress
negative stories – a tactic prosecutors call “catch-and-kill”.
“They
asked me what can I do – and what magazines could do – to help the
campaign,” Pecker said, adding that he said he would be the “eyes and
ears” for the campaign.
Prosecutors
allege Pecker ultimately connected Trump to the adult film star Stormy
Daniels in 2016, before the election. Trump has been charged with 34
felony counts of falsifying business records, allegedly covering up a
$130,000 payment in 2016 to Daniels over a 2006 affair...
More salacious facts coming out (including tapes), while Don Snoreleone tries to stay awake.
... Judge
Juan Merchan must decide after a Tuesday hearing whether to punish
Trump for purported violations of a gag order meant to protect
witnesses, court staff and the jury from public attacks by the former
president.
Prosecutors
want Merchan to fine Trump $1,000 for each of 10 alleged violations of
the gag order and to warn that imprisonment could be an option if he
continues to flout restrictions.
An Arizona grand jury on Wednesday indicted seven attorneys or aides
affiliated with Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign as well as 11
Arizona Republicans on felony charges related to their alleged efforts
to subvert Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in the state, according to an
announcement by the state attorney general.
Those indicted include former TrumpWhite House chief of staff Mark Meadows,attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman and Christina Bobb, top campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn and former campaign aide Mike Roman.They are accused of allegedlyaiding
an unsuccessful strategy to award the state’s electoral votes to Trump
instead of Biden after the 2020 election. Also charged are the
Republicans who signed paperwork on Dec. 14, 2020, that falsely
purported Trump was the rightful winner, including former state party
chair Kelli Ward, two state senators and Tyler Bowyer, a GOP national
committeeman and chief operating officer of Turning Point Action, the
campaign arm of the pro-Trump conservative group Turning Point USA.
Trump was not charged, but he is described in the indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator.
The
indictments cap a year-long investigation by Arizona Attorney General
Kris Mayes (D) into how the elector strategy played out in Arizona,
which Biden won by 10,457 votes. Arizonais the fourth state after Michigan, Georgia and Nevada to seek charges against those who formed an alternate slate of presidential electors...
Perhaps, following Fani Willis' lead in Georgia, prosecutors in Arizona, Nevada and Michigan will append their indictments to include the "unindicted co-conspirator," a.k.a., the Malignant Loser/ Don Snoreleone/ Rip van Stinkle.
