<The Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to former President Donald Trump's 2024 presidential aspirations by ruling against his appearance on the state's ballot.

The decision, announced on Tuesday, is based on a Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits officials who have engaged in "insurrection" from holding office.

The court's majority cited Trump's actions during and related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol siege as grounds for disqualification.

The ruling stated, "A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Steven Cheung, Trump's campaign spokesperson, expressed outrage at the ruling and accused the court, composed of all-Democrat appointees, of partisanship and attempting to interfere in the election.

He described the decision as "deeply undemocratic" and announced plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cheung's statement emphasized the perceived bias against Trump, saying, "Democrat [sic] Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls." He accused them of trying to protect Biden's presidency by denying Colorado voters the right to choose their preferred candidate.

The Colorado Supreme Court's decision, which passed with a 4-3 vote, is temporarily on hold until January 4, pending the appeal. The ruling rejects Trump's free-speech claims and outlines the court's reasoning for considering his actions as participation in an insurrection.

The court's majority opinion stated that Trump's conduct during the Capitol riot, including his repeated demands to Vice President Pence and calls to Senators to halt the electoral vote count, amounted to "overt, voluntary, and direct participation in the insurrection."

This ruling marks a critical moment in Trump's political career and highlights the ongoing legal and constitutional challenges facing his potential candidacy. The upcoming appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will be closely watched as it may set a precedent for similar actions in other states and have significant implications for the 2024 presidential race.>

<Trump has repeatedly shared posts on Truth Social that claim a man sitting at his civil trial is the son of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, who is handling the case, and that he is somehow financially benefiting from the prime spot.

But those claims fell apart Tuesday when the real-life man outed himself as Ben Kochman, a New York Post reporter covering the case. He penned an op-ed lambasting the posts for the newspaper, outlining how he first discovered he’d been embroiled in a Trump-fueled conspiracy and why he finally decided to speak up.

Trump recently posted a picture with a red arrow pointing at Kochman, as well as an article written by anti-Muslim activist Laura Loomer which falsely claimed that it was Engoron’s son, who was “financially benefitting” with his “prominent” seat. Though Kochman was tipped off about the first post in November, he wrote in his editorial that he initially “felt it wasn’t worth giving any air.”

But when Trump shared the post a second time and it garnered more attention—disgraced former Rep. George Santos even commented on it—Kochman decided it was time to speak up.

Santos responded to Loomer’s story with a fire emoji and asked the House Oversight Committee to “investigate further” in an attempt to root out “misconduct.”

“As for The Donald,” Kochman wrote in his op-ed, “it’s unclear if he knows who I am. But hopefully he’ll soon know who I’m not.”

It’s not the first time Trump has picked on someone in the courtroom with false statements—he was widely criticized earlier this year and subjected to a gag order after dragging Engoron’s law clerk through the mud, posting at one point that she was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “girlfriend” while his lawyers attempted to decry her alleged influence over the case.

Kochman said he plans to be at the Jan. 11 closing statements for the fraud trial “beard and all,” and joked, “maybe I’ll keep them guessing with a mustache.”>

<[Event "12th Harvard Open"] [Site "Cambridge, Mass"]
[Date "1988.05.07"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Formanek, Edward"]
[Black "Glickman, Mark"]
[ECO "B76"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "12th Harvard Open"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1988.05.07"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Fang, Joseph"]
[Black "Gerds, Karl W"]
[ECO "A04"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "12th Harvard Open"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1988.05.07"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Chapman, Woodley"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "C34"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "12th Harvard Open"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1988.05.08"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "MacArthur, John"]
[Black "Fang, Christopher"]
[ECO "C68"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "12th Harvard Open"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1988.05.07"]
[EventDate "1988"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Curdo, John"]
[Black "Epstein, Esther"]
[ECO "B40"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<The potential delay of Donald Trump’s federal criminal trial on charges of conspiring to interfere with the 2020 election raises a little-discussed possibility: His first criminal trial could be held in Manhattan on state charges.

Last year, a New York grand jury indicted the former president for falsifying documents to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Silencing that scandal helped get him elected. It was a preview of Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election — except that in 2016 he <succeeded>.

Unquestionably, it would be best for the D.C. trial to go first. The grand jury’s indictment concerns an attempted crime against the nation that we saw in real time ... and while Trump was the president. It’s yet to be proven in court, but it has to rank as the greatest presidential betrayal of the nation in history. But the D.C. trial going first may not be in the cards. In that case, with Trump’s new appeal of two denied motions to dismiss the Jan. 6-related prosecution, the law required Judge Tanya Chutkan to stay the prosecution last week pending appellate disposition.

Trump’s appeal is legally fraught, to put it kindly — less an attempt to win than to delay. Special counsel Jack Smith has moved on all fronts to expedite the appeals. He may well succeed and get that case tried on March 4 as scheduled, or shortly thereafter.

But it’s possible that Trump’s appeals in the D.C. case won’t be resolved before March 25, when Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution is set for trial. Bragg previously has been sensitive to the priority of Smith’s Jan. 6-related prosecution and he could ask to delay the New York trial. But guessing at an appellate decision date in a related case is not the province of prosecutors. Bragg’s duty is to try the Manhattan grand jury’s indictment as scheduled.

For all who believe in Trump’s legal accountability for his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, disappointment will be natural if the D.C. case can’t go first. Fortunately, the consolation prize is nothing to sneer at. While some observers have minimized the significance of the New York prosecution, there’s far more to it than meets the eye.

Bragg’s case is the story of a cover-up that may have gotten Trump, the man who would be king, into the Oval Office. The New York grand jury has charged Trump with falsifying business records to cover up the scandal that he kept from voters four weeks before his 2016 election. The buried story of Trump’s infidelity with Daniels may well have changed history.

Lest you think, “Ho, hum, nothing but sex there,” context always matters. At that stage of Trump’s political life, he still needed to hide who he was. Voters were not yet entirely inured to his indecency. If not hushed, the revelation would have come immediately on the heels of Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape scandal, which led his own running mate to consider stepping down from the ticket. That’s why Trump didn’t authorize a $130,000 payment to buy her silence until after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced. Once it did, he knew that one-two punch could knock out his presidential ambitions.

Had the affair become public, there may well have been no 30,000 lies during four years in office, no family separations, no Rudy Giuliani defaming innocent women, no Jan. 6. There would have been no Trump 2024. Democracy’s regret for that may be eternal.

Good prosecutors will explain all these things and more to a jury. They will be heard across America.

At its heart, the mission of the law is to protect people. Prosecutors will explain how, at the ground level, the prohibition on falsifying business records protects honest competitors, ordinary citizens and the state from fraud.

But to ensure that the jury sees the forest and not just the trees, Bragg’s team will also explain that the people for whom justice is sought are the people of America. In 2016, voters were shortchanged on the right to cast presidential ballots with full information on exactly who one candidates was. Buying a sex partner’s silence weeks before an election was a crime against democracy, and falsifying business records was but a continuation of that crime. Bragg and his prosecutors will make crystal clear to the jurors that they will be deciding a case of profound significance for the nation.

No one should give up hope that an early resolution of Trump’s federal appeals will block his attempts to manipulate the judicial process. But if it turns out that they stall his D.C. prosecution for more than four months, there is a strong Plan B.

<American public pension funds have invested more than $68 billion in China – the US’ No. 1 adversary – since 2020, alarming finance experts who are warning about the national security risks in a new report obtained by The Post.

The bipartisan nonprofit Future Union found that 56 of the largest 74 American pension plans had put money into the Chinese market over the past 36 months — a period during which relations between Beijing and Washington have only grown more strained.

“In the past 12 months, 24 investments alone have been made, which should be acknowledged as support for the technological advancement of China,” the report said.

“Our research indicates four of the largest US public pensions have invested in China in the last few months,” it added.

In all, the new report says, various US public pension funds have more than $73.28 billion wrapped up in Chinese stocks.

Among the largest funds investing in Chinese companies are the New York State Common Retirement Fund — more than $8.3 billion — and the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, which has $3.1 billion committed.

Other top public pension funds investing in China are the California Public Employees Retirement System ($7.86 billion); the California State Teachers System ($5.55 billion); the Washington State Investment Board ($5.02 billion); San Francisco Employees Retirement System ($3.3 billion); and the Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System ($3.2 billion), according to the report.

Dozens of public American school systems and universities’ endowment funds have also invested more than $7.6 billion in Chinese companies.

Topping that list are the University of Michigan ($1.56 billion); Texas’ public school fund ($1.97 billion) and the University of Texas System ($1.6 billion); as well as the University of California Board of Regents ($1.55 billion)....>

<....“The threat posed by China to America’s national security is clear yet the managers of our retirees’ pensions and university endowments continue to feign ignorance and rue accountability [sic], undermining America’s national interests,” Future Union executive director Andrew King told The Post. “That must end now.”

Private university endowments are also guilty of the questionable investments, but the total amounts are unclear as they do not have the same reporting requirements as public institutions, King said.

For example, the group found that Columbia University, Harvard University and the University of Chicago have invested unknown amounts in China.

Still, Future Union tracked down enough information to determine that Princeton has at least $155 million invested in Chinese funds, followed by Stanford (at least $80 million), Yale (at least $50 million); Massachusetts Institute of Technology (at least $22 million); Duke (at least $20 million); and Carnegie Mellon (at least $10 million).

“The report is effectively an indictment against existing pension and endowment leaders who, up to now, have taken the path of least resistance in preserving optionality instead of demonstrating true leadership and doing what’s right instead of what’s easy,” King said.

Though the investment data is concerning, King said he was not claiming any illegal activity, adding that many of the institutions “probably don’t know” that their funds are being invested in the Chinese market.

“Not every fund is a villain, and this report highlights the pensions, endowments, and nonprofit funds that are leading on this issue,” King said. “Others should follow their lead and take meaningful action.”

King also said Future Union did not want to accuse money managers of “intentionally backing China over the US,” but explained that investing in Chinese stocks is tempting given that Beijing tightly controls its market and can artificially inflate returns.

“They’re making investments in startups that are competing against us and democratically aligned countries with a rigged system where the [CCP] members basically put the thumbs on the scale of who wins, and so obviously returns are better,” he said.

“The fact is [investors] run portfolios, they want diversification and frankly, if the returns are good in China, they’re going to invest in try it out,” he added.

Still, he said, the conduct has “just got to stop,” given the threats such investments pose to the US government and American innovation and industry.

In a statement last week, former Pentagon chief technology officer Christine Michienzi called China “the leading threat to US national and economic security” – and noted investing in its market only enhances that threat.

“Efforts that assist China in growing its economy help erode US capability and provides China with an advantage in any potential military engagement,” she said. “Identifying these investors is a critical step in deterring this type of assistance and preventing China from continuing its quest for dominance.”

Aside from committing a political faux pas, King said US investors in China assume “a non-zero risk” that Beijing could freeze the funds given current geopolitical tensions.

“Because the whole system is rigged in China, there may be a day where they don’t let you get your money,” he said. “It’s not encompassed any of the models that make these asset management firms run.”

Future Union, which works to “magnify the impact of the private sector and capitalism in preparation for global conflicts,” plans to present its findings to Congress after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) removed a bipartisan proposal to curb Pentagon investments in Chinese technology from the 2024 National Defense Authorization bill, which passed last week.

“The removal of legislation that would have restricted capital to China through the NDAA effectively sidelined Congress well into next year and for the foreseeable future,” King lamented. “It also evinced an uncomfortable truth that America’s elected leaders need help.”

“What we’re hoping to do is catalyze get some of the representatives back on the Hill to come around on this issue,” he added.

Such an initiative may have a chance in the new year, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) told The Post that “Congress must act so that public pension dollars do not fuel the CCP’s economic, ideological and military aggression.”

<Former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss can immediately seek enforcement of their $146 million financial judgment against Rudy Giuliani because there is good reason to assume he will not comply, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

“Giuliani’s failure to ‘satisfy even more modest monetary awards entered earlier in this case,’ provides good cause to believe that he will seek to dissipate or conceal his assets during the 30-day period,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote in her order.

The decision allows Freeman and Moss to go after Giuliani's assets in New York and Florida.

An eight-person jury in Washington, D.C. awarded Freeman and Moss over $148 million in damages last week after the judge found Giuliani liable for repeatedly defaming the mother and daughter by falsely accusing them of carrying out election fraud in Georgia during the 2020 presidential election. In her order Wednesday, Howell reduced the verdict by roughly $2 million to reflect damages the pair were paid in a settlement last year with the other defendant in the case, the TV network OAN.

Giuliani had argued the judge shouldn't "abnormally shorten" the automatic 30-day stay after the verdict, but Howell wrote that under the circumstances of this case, "there is nothing 'abnormal' about plaintiffs’ request" and it was "appropriate and warranted" given Giuliani's behavior in the case.

Howell found Giuliani liable as a punishment for repeatedly snubbing court orders in the case requiring him to turn over evidence — including about his finances — to Freeman and Moss. He also ignored orders that he pay their attorneys over $200,000 in legal fees for trying to enforce the orders.

"Giuliani cannot and does not dispute that he has continued to disregard the Court’s orders directing payment of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs in connection with plaintiffs’ successful discovery motions," the judge wrote.

Howell also cited Freeman and Moss's concerns that "Giuliani has numerous and mounting debts," but indicated she was skeptical that Giuliani is as broke as he's portrayed himself to be because of his "persistent refusal" to turn over his financial information.

"Such claims of Giuliani’s 'financial difficulties'—no matter how many times repeated or publicly disseminated and duly reported in the media—are difficult to square with the fact that Giuliani affords a spokesperson, who accompanied him daily to trial," the judge noted, and “Giuliani has failed to show that he cannot pay the [amount] he owes.”

Giuliani's spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

Giuliani has called the size of the verdict "absurd."

In her order Wednesday, Howell wrote that she did not consider the amount excessive.

"The amount of compensatory damages for defamation awarded by the jury was nearly $10,000,000 less than the amount requested by plaintiffs for reputational harm," the judge noted, while also pointing out the jury's $75 million award for punitive damages was much less than it could have been.

It was roughly the same total amount the pair had been awarded for reputational and emotional harm, and the jury had been instructed they could multiply that amount by four if they thought it was necessary, Howell pointed out.

Giuliani still can appeal the judgment but would need to post a bond of the full amount owed to Freeman and Moss — $146 million — to do so. If he can’t put up a bond of that amount, Giuliani would have to convince Howell to waive or lower the bond.>

<The Republican leader of Wisconsin’s Assembly who had threatened possible impeachment of a new liberal state Supreme Court justice over her views on redistricting now says such a move is “super unlikely.”

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos originally threatened to impeach Justice Janet Protasiewicz if she did not recuse herself from the redistricting challenge, which is backed by Democrats seeking to throw out Republican-drawn electoral maps. After Protasiewicz refused to step down from the case, Vos raised the possibility of impeachment based on how she rules.

Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered nationally, with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote, according to an Associated Press analysis.

When asked in an interview Wednesday if he would move to impeach Protasiewicz if she orders new maps to be drawn, Vos said, “I think it’s very unlikely.”

“It's one of the tools that we have in our toolbox that we could use at any time,” Vos said of impeachment. “Is it going to be used? I think it’s super unlikely.”

However, Vos refused to rule it out.

“We don’t know what could happen, right?” he said. “There could be a scandal where something occurs. I don’t know.”

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said Vos' comments show that “his unconstitutional threat to overturn a Supreme Court election through a groundless impeachment has gone up in smoke.”

The Wisconsin Constitution reserves impeachment for “corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors.”

Vos first floated the possibility of impeachment in August after Protasiewicz called the Republican-drawn legislative boundary maps “rigged” and “unfair” during her campaign. Protasiewicz, in her decision not to recuse herself from the case, said that while stating her opinion about the maps, she never made a promise or pledge about how she would rule.

Wisconsin judge reaffirms abortion ruling
Impeachment has drawn bipartisan opposition, and two former conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, asked by Vos to investigate the possibility, told him in October it was not warranted. Vos refused to say what advice he got from a third retired justice whom he consulted.

If the Assembly were to impeach Protasiewicz, and the Senate convicted her, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would get to name her replacement. If she had been removed from office prior to Dec. 1, there would have been a special election.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the redistricting lawsuit in November and could issue a ruling any day.

The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. Republicans adopted maps last year that were similar to the existing ones.

The lawsuit before the state Supreme Court asks that all 132 state lawmakers be up for election in 2024 in newly drawn districts.>

<[Event "Bulger Memorial"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1985.01.13"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "4.3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Gutman, Richard G"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "B92"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are requesting a large amount of information from Special Counsel Jack Smith related to the Justice Department's (DOJ) investigation into former President Donald Trump, according to a letter sent to Smith on Thursday.

The three-page letter, which was signed by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance Andy Biggs, said that the requested information is connected to Republicans' oversight of the DOJ's "commitment to impartial justice" under the administration of President Joe Biden.

Smith is leading both criminal investigations into Trump ahead of the 2024 November election, where the former president is currently predicted to go up against Biden. The former president has maintained that he is innocent of all charges against him and has accused Smith of launching a "witch hunt." He is facing 91 criminal charges across all four of his indictments, including prosecutions in Georgia and Manhattan.

"We have significant concerns about Special Counsel Jack Smith's targeting and hatred of conservatives," Biggs wrote in a post to X, formerly Twitter. "He can either comply with @Jim_Jordan and me or face a subpoena."

Lawmakers accused Smith and the DOJ of having a "record of attempting to criminalize political discourse," pointing to accusations from conservative groups who claimed back in 2017 that they were being unfairly scrutinized by the Internal Revenue Service for their political leanings.

Republicans also noted Smith's redacted warrant related to his investigation into the former president's alleged election subversion plan, which requested the names and personal information of social media users who interacted with Trump's X account.

Republicans are requesting that Smith produce all documents and communications related to the investigation into Trump, the salaries of staff members at the Office of Special Counsel, and the hiring and selection processes of current and former staff members at Smith's office. The letter requests the information be provided by 5 p.m. ET on January 4, 2024.

Newsweek has reached out to the DOJ's press office for comment.

Smith's investigations into Trump's alleged activities have sparked criticism from Republicans in the past, who claim that the prosecutions are politically-motivated.

In June, the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting copies of documents related to Smith's appointment as special counsel, and in September the committee sent a letter to Smith requesting information related to accusations against one of the DOJ's attorneys, Jay Bratt.

Allies of the former president have also attempted to strip funding from Smith's office as a way to halt the investigations, and in August the House Judiciary Committee launched an inquiry into a meeting between the special counsel and White House officials after Smith allegedly met with members of Biden's office "numerous times" while investigating Trump.>

<Public officials’ families should never benefit financially from that person’s political power, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said this week — and was immediately hit by a ferocious backlash.

Jordan took to the airwaves to defend an impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden that has yet to uncover evidence of wrongdoing.

“When you do something that benefits your family financially and you’re a public official,” Jordan told Fox News viewers, “that’s not supposed to happen.”

Replied Shelby Kent-Stewart on X, “Jared and Ivanka, 'advisors' to Trump during his administration would like a word.”

Kent-Stewart was not the only viewer of Jordan’s problematic decree to take umbrage with his political allies’ financial forays.

MSNBC producer Steve Benen published Thursday a scathing screed both defending Biden and skewering Trump.

“I could spend a few paragraphs noting that there simply isn’t any evidence of Biden ever using his office to advance his family’s business interests,” Benen writes. “But that’s not the only problem here.”

The problem, for Benen and the thousands of people who’ve weighed in on x, is best summarized in a Politico report from January 2020, when Trump was still in the White House.

“Donald Trump has accomplished something no president before him has done: fusing his private business interests with America’s highest public office,” Anita Kumar wrote.

“He has spent one out of every three days as president visiting one of his luxury resorts, hotels or golf courses,” wrote Anita Kumar. “He has leveraged his powerful international platform to promote his developments dozens of times. And he has directed millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to his businesses around the globe.”

As testimony from New York Letitia James’ $250 million civil fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization shows, Trump’s business was a family business.

This point was not lost upon viewers who took to X to comment.

“Is he joking here?” asked Dianne Callahan. “He perfectly described Donald J. Trump.”

Others took the opportunity to draw comparison to Rep. James Comer, who reportedly used a shell company and paid his brother $200,000, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom watchdog groups have accused of essentially laundering money through his wife Ginni.

“Hello,” wrote @DCelesteSpencer. “Comer did something that benefited him & his family.”

Added @dachipster, “I never expected Gym to come after Clarence Thomas so hard.”>

<[Event "FRG-ch International"] [Site "Mannheim FRG"] [Date "1975.03.??"]
[EventDate "1975"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Mallee, Ralph"]
[Black "Browne, Walter"]
[ECO "B87"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 b5 7.Bb3 e6 8.O-O Be7 9.f4 O-O 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 Nfd7 12.Qh5 Nc6 13.Nxc6 Qb6+ 14.Be3 Qxc6 15.Rf3 Bb7 16.Kh1 Bc5 17.Re1 a5 18.a4 b4 19.Nb5 Bxe3 20.Rexe3 Rad8 21.Rg3 g6 22.Qg4 Nc5 23.Nd6 Nxb3 24.Rxb3 Qxc2 25.h4 Bxg2+ 26.Rxg2 Qxb3 27.h5 Qd5 28.Qg5 Rxd6 29.exd6 Qxg5 30.Rxg5 f5 31.hxg6 Rd8 32.gxh7+ Kxh7 33.Kg2 Rxd6 34.Kf3 Rd4 35.Rg2 e5 36.Rg5 Rf4+ 37.Ke3 Rf1 38.b3 Kh6 39.Rg8 Rb1 40.Ra8 Rxb3+ 41.Ke2 Kg5 42.Rxa5 Kf4 43.Rb5 e4 44.a5 Rb2+ 45.Kf1 Ra2 0-1>

<[Event "FRG-ch International"] [Site "Mannheim FRG"]
[Date "1975.03.??"]
[EventDate "1975"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Westerinen, Heikki"]
[Black "Mallee, Ralph"]
[ECO "B02"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "FRG-ch International"] [Site "Mannheim FRG"]
[Date "1975.03.??"]
[EventDate "1975"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Mallee, Ralph"]
[Black "Parma, Bruno"]
[ECO "C63"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "FRG-ch International"] [Site "Mannheim FRG"]
[Date "1975.03.??"]
[EventDate "1975"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Dueball, Juergen"]
[Black "Mallee, Ralph"]
[ECO "A34"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<The $148 million ruling against Rudy Giuliani could have failed gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake “shaking in her boots,” according to a new analysis from MSNBC.

The ruling against Giuliani, and in favor of two Georgia poll workers he falsely accused of interfering in the 2020 election, came days before an Arizona Superior Court judge ruled a similar defamation lawsuit against Lake could go ahead.

The timing is important, argue MSNBC analysts Steve Benen and Alex Wagner.

“This is relevant because Lake is her party’s likely nominee in next year’s closely watched U.S. Senate race in the Grand Canyon State,” writes Benen.

Like Giuliani, Lake will now have to face the consequences of election-denying claims, in her case that two Republican election officials in Maricopa County helped “rig” Arizona’s gubernatorial race.

And as did Ruby Freeman, the Georgia poll worker who says she was terrorized after Giuliani defamed her, one of those officials has said he received death threats when targeted by Lake.

“We don’t yet know what the outcome of the defamation case might be,” writes Benen, “but we now know that the litigation will move forward.”

That Lake will be facing these court proceedings as she heads into an election year is not ideal, but Wagner notes another problem with timing.

The Arizona judge’s ruling arriving so soon after a Washington D.C. judge found Giuliani liable for $148 million in damages sends a message to Lake, Wagner told Benen.

The ruling has “significant implications for what we as a country allow election deniers to get away with,” she said.>

Here's hoping they <own> you, fool!!!

<[Event "US Amateur Team East"] [Site "Somerset NJ"]
[Date "1985.02.16"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "2.17"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Kupferberg, Alan"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "A26"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "US Amateur Team East"] [Site "Somerset NJ"]
[Date "1985.02.18"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "6.4"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Richard, Robert"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "A25"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<President Joe Biden's reelection campaign has joined a lawsuit seeking to halt a law in a battleground state that could disqualify thousands of ballots in 2024.

Politico reported Friday that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is challenging a law New Hampshire's Republican-controlled legislature passed last year that requires voters who registered to vote on Election Day (which requires the signing of an affidavit attesting that they are a resident of New Hampshire) to produce a photo ID within seven days of registration, or else their votes would be tossed out. Senate Bill 418 stipulates that in addition to rejecting ballots, those voters' names would be referred to the New Hampshire Attorney General's office for investigation.

"President Biden and Vice President Harris believe that we should be making it easier, not harder, for every eligible American voter to participate in our democracy. New Hampshire’s law flies in the face of that belief, and is a chilling and unacceptable embrace of the election fraud hysteria championed by Donald Trump," Biden campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodriguez told Politico. "In an election that could very well determine the fate of our democracy, it is our imperative to fight for the right to vote. This is just the beginning."

According to Politico, there were approximately 75,000 new voters who registered on Election Day 2020, though data on how many of those new voters had photo ID is unavailable. However, Biden won the Granite State by less than 70,000 votes in 2020, meaning the law has the potential to swing election results.

Even though New Hampshire has a Republican trifecta government (with the GOP in control of both chambers of the legislature as well as the governor's mansion) its representatives in the House of Representatives and US Senate are all Democrats, meaning the Granite State's four Electoral college votes are not guaranteed to either party. Having the challenge answered by the February 2024 primary is unlikely, but the Biden campaign aims to have the issue litigated in advance of the 2024 general election in November.

This marks the second such DNC lawsuit challenging a state's election laws, following an October challenge to North Carolina's Senate bill 747, which has similar provisions governing same-day voter registration and photo ID requirements. Democratic governor Roy Cooper vetoed the bill, but the GOP-dominated legislature overrode Cooper's veto. The DNC filed the lawsuit shortly after the law took effect.

SB 418 has been previously challenged by the New Hampshire American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which called the law "unconstitutional," saying it would "diminish the secrecy of ballots and tie voter’s names to the candidates and issues for which they voted on their ballot." The suit was ultimately dismissed for a lack of standing.>