<According to MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, attorney Alina Habba's curious response to a letter from Judge Arthur Engoron over perjury allegations levied against Allen Weisselberg, the ex-chief financial officer for the Trump Organization, should be raising eyebrows.

At issue, she noted, is that the controversial Habba not only has Donald Trump as a client but also defended Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty to guilty to 15 counts that included grand larceny, falsifying business records and criminal tax fraud.

Judge Arthur Engoron, who is presiding over Donald Trump's financial fraud trial, earlier this week responded to a New York Times report stating Weisselberg is suspected of perjury and demanded some answers from Trump's legal team.

However, attorney Rubin pointed to the response to this demand from Habba that she found curious.

In her letter, Habba wrote, "We do not represent him [Weisselberg] in connection with any criminal matters. I have not spoken with the New York District Attorney’s Office (DANY) about any of the matters discussed in the New York Times article. Further, in an abundance of caution, I have conferred with my ethics counsel and have been advised that I am constrained by my professional ethical obligations from providing any further detail."

As Rubin wrote, "Notably, she does not deny conferring with Weisselberg and/or his criminal defense counsel about the plea negotiations. She also does not deny that some portion of his testimony was knowingly false."

That, the MSNBC analyst suggested, could mean that Habba may be in violation of Rule 3.3 concerning her ethical obligations to all of her clients — not just Donald Trump.

"For now, it’s not clear what ethical obligations she’s referring to," argued Rubin. "After all, Engoron — in an emailed response to counsel Thursday — reaffirmed Habba’s duties under Rule 3.3. And he ended with a stern warning: '[I]f someone pleads guilty to committing perjury in a case over which I am presiding, I want to know about it.'"

And that, she suggested, may become an issue for Habba as Engoron continued to ponder the hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties requested by New York Attorney General Letitia James as part of her civil suit.>

<When Charles Littlejohn worked as a contractor at the Internal Revenue Service, he abused his position, accessed Donald Trump’s tax records, and leaked them to The New York Times. The Justice Department investigated, found the culprit, and charged him with unauthorized disclosure of tax information.

Littlejohn ultimately pleaded guilty, and federal prosecutors sought the statutory maximum of five years in federal prison. Two weeks ago, a judge agreed, and the defendant received exactly the sentence the Justice Department wanted to see. (The jurist who agreed to the statutory maximum sentence, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, was appointed to the bench by President Joe Biden.)

In general, Republicans haven’t had much to say about this story, because it doesn’t advance any of the right’s preferred narratives. The Biden administration’s Justice Department didn’t shrug off the case because Trump was the victim; prosecutors did the opposite, taking the case seriously and pursuing it with vigor, without regard for party.

For all the talk about a “weaponized” DOJ, and rascally Democrats politicizing federal law enforcement, the prosecution of Charles Littlejohn added fresh evidence to the fact that GOP claims about a “two-tiered” justice system are nonsense.

But — and you had to know a “but” was coming — some Republicans don’t quite see it this way. In fact, as the conservative Washington Times reported, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has opened an investigation into the investigation.

Jordan’s office issued a press statement characterizing Littlejohn’s prosecution as a “sweetheart deal,” arguing that the criminal in this case accessed and leaked others’ tax documents — not just the former president’s — and those abuses weren’t included in the indictment.

Time will tell what, if anything, comes of the GOP probe, but in the meantime, it’s worth pausing to appreciate the fact that House Republicans, especially Jordan, appear to have an incredible fondness for investigating investigations.

Circling back to our earlier coverage, it looks like it’s time to update the big list:

The GOP found the investigation into Donald Trump’s Russia scandal to be problematic, so Republicans investigated the investigation.

The party didn’t care that Hillary Clinton was cleared in her email controversy, so Republicans endorsed investigating the investigation.

Much of the party opposed the bipartisan investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, so Republicans are investigating the investigation.

Jordan and his cohorts were outraged by the former president’s indictment in New York, so they launched an investigation into the investigation.

Jordan and his cohorts were also outraged by the former president’s indictment in Georgia, so they launched an investigation into the investigation.

Congressional Republicans are incensed by special counsel Jack Smith’s probe, so the party is investigating the investigation.

GOP officials have all kinds of concerns about Hunter Biden’s case, so the party is investigating the investigation.

Washington D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb launched an investigation into Leonard Leo and his network of non-profit groups, so Republicans are investigating this investigation, too.

The bad news for Jordan is that his bid for House speaker fell far short last fall. The good news for the Ohio Republican that this gives him more time to pursue his favorite congressional hobby.>

<It was a consequential week for the 2024 race for control of the Senate, where Democrats were dealt both a political gift and a new challenge in races in Montana and Maryland as they attempt to hold on to their slim Senate majority.

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) announced Friday that he will run for Senate in Montana, defying the wishes of national Republicans and setting up a contentious primary to take on vulnerable Democratic Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). Meanwhile, in Maryland, Republican Larry Hogan, the popular former governor, said he plans to run for the state’s open Senate seat, potentially making the race to replace Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) more competitive than previously thought.

In Montana, Republicans had hoped to avoid a bitter primary in what they see as a must-win state. Tim Sheehy already has the backing of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and also received a key endorsement from former President Donald Trump hours after Rosendale announced his decision to jump into the race.

While Trump stopped short of going after Rosendale, Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), the chairman of the NRSC, had harsher criticism for the Montana congressman who failed to unseat Tester once before in 2018.

“It’s unfortunate that rather than building seniority for our great state in the House, Matt is choosing to abandon his seat and create a divisive primary,” he said in a statement. “Whichever party wins the Montana Senate seat will control the United States Senate in 2024, and Republicans cannot risk nominating a candidate who gave Jon Tester the biggest victory of his career.”

Democrats celebrated Rosendale’s entrance into the race, calling it a “nightmare” scenario for Republicans.

“The NRSC’s Montana nightmare just came true as their plans to avoid a nasty, expensive primary came crashing down around them,” said Tommy Garcia, a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman. “Whichever candidate emerges from their bruising intraparty fight will be deeply damaged and abhorrent to the voters that decide the general election.”

Tester is one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for reelection in 2024, in a state Trump easily won twice. Jon Reinish, a Democratic strategist, said he believes the race will be a competitive one but that this primary improves Tester’s chances of getting reelected.

“There is now going to be an expensive, hard-fought, and nasty primary on the Right. Sheehy will now have to concentrate on defeating Rosendale,” Reinish said. “Jon Tester is never breathing easy, but he’s walking a little lighter today.”

There are 34 Senate seats up for grabs in the 2024 election cycle. Of these, Democrats must defend 23, compared to just 11 for Republicans, and nearly all competitive seats are currently held by Democrats, putting them on the defensive as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tries to maintain his slim majority. A state almost no one thought would be competitive is Maryland.

Hogan is expected to easily win the Republican nomination for the seat that’s open after Cardin announced his retirement. On the Democratic side, Rep. David Trone (D-MD) is facing off against Angela Alsobrooks, the executive of Prince George’s County.

While Reinish said Hogan’s entrance into the race is a major boost for Republicans, the state will still be difficult for the GOP to flip.

“Hogan was a popular governor. However, while Maryland, like Massachusetts, like Vermont, all really blue states, will sometimes, not infrequently, break that partisan rank at the home, statewide level and elect a moderate Republican attorney general or governor, Maryland has not sent a Republican to the Senate in decades,” he said.

“You consider it the best recruitment Republicans have had in Maryland in decades, but it will be incredibly uphill for him,” Reinish added. “But, Democrats will now have to pay attention to Maryland, which they did not think they would have to do.”

David Bergstein, a spokesman for the DSCC, said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Hogan would face a challenge: “Democrats have won every statewide federal election in Maryland for 44 years and 2024 will be no different,” he wrote.

Democrats and the independents who caucus with them hold 51 seats in the chamber. Of the Senate Democrats up for reelection, seven are in states that went for Trump in 2016, 2020, or both. There are no Republican seats up in states won by either Hillary Clinton in 2016 or President Joe Biden in 2020.>

<The Democratic National Committee (DNC) launched billboards in Michigan on Friday, hitting independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his aligned Super PAC, American Values 2024, receiving donations from a former President Trump mega-donor, the committee first told The Hill.

The committee is launching four billboards in Grand Rapids, Mich., as Kennedy kickstarts his tour of the Great Lake State, a battleground in the 2024 contest, scrutinizing the independent challenger over his outside group getting a $15 million boost from Tim Mellon, a transportation executive.

The billboards feature a headshot of Kennedy on the left side and Trump on the other. In the middle, the sign reads “RFK Jr. powered by MAGA Trump. Same biggest donor Timothy Mellon.”

They are set to run throughout Saturday, Feb. 10.

“RFK Jr. isn’t fooling anyone,” DNC Rapid Response Director Alex Floyd told The Hill in a statement. “He’s powered and bankrolled by the same extreme MAGA donor as Donald Trump, and Trump’s allies have already called him a useful chaos agent in this election.”

“Michiganders deserve better than a stalking horse for extreme MAGA Republicans,” Floyd added.

Donald Trump dispels rumors that he reached out to RFK Jr for VP: ‘Never happened’ American Values 2024, a Kennedy-aligned group, received $15 million from Mellon in 2023, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) fillings. Mellon donated $10 million to MAGA Inc., a Trump-aligned Super PAC, in 2023, according to FEC records.

The billboard campaign comes just hours after the DNC accused Kennedy and American Values 2024 of illegally coordinating, alleging he is receiving improper benefits from the Super PAC that is supporting his push to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

DNC filed the complaint with the FEC on Friday, claiming the outside group’s practice of hiring signature-gathering vendors and helping Kennedy get on the ballot in battleground states, like Michigan and Illinois, violates federal election laws.

Kennedy has qualified to be on the ballot in Utah. His campaign announced in January that he is eligible to appear on the ballot in New Hampshire.

Kennedy, who initially started his White House bid within the Democratic primary but switched to an independent bid in October, has raised concerns with some Democrats fearing that his push, along with other third-party candidates like Cornel West or Jill Stein, is taking away votes from President Biden and giving Trump a higher chance to get reelected in November.

The Hill has reached out to Kennedy’s campaign for comment.>

<Sen. Steve Daines, the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, delivered some prepared remarks on Capitol Hill this week, reflecting on the conditions President Joe Biden “inherited” three years ago. Of particular interest was the Montanan’s focus on the economy:

It’s easy for someone to flub relevant details when speaking off the cuff, but in this instance, Danies was reading from a prepared script.

Part of the problem with the GOP leader’s pitch is that his factual details are plainly and demonstrably wrong. During Donald Trump’s first three years in the White House, job growth actually fell, and during his fourth year, the U.S. economy lost over 9 million jobs.

Biden didn’t inherit “record job increases”; he inherited the opposite. This isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s simply what happened. As for the idea that the American Rescue Plan “created problems for this economy,” the Republican probably ought to know that, thanks to that Democratic legislation, United States is experiencing the world’s best post-pandemic recovery. In fact, it’s a recovery that’s led to the creation of over 15 million jobs since January 2021 — more than double the combined total of Trump’s first three years as president.

Again, none of this is subjective. It’s not a matter of perspective. I’m simply highlighting reality.

But the other part of Daines’ pitch that falls short is the degree to which it’s part of a larger effort: Republicans are eager to convince the public to disregard their memories of 2020.

In case anyone needs a refresher, by Trump’s fourth year in office was unusually horrible for the United States. The Republican administration badly mishandled the federal response to a deadly pandemic. Millions of Americans lost their jobs — including the month before Biden’s inauguration, when the economy shed nearly a quarter of a million jobs — as part of a recession that began in February 2020. The national murder rate worsened, too.

The nation’s executive branch was led by a scandal-plagued amateur, who was unpopular and ineffective, and who lost his re-election bid by a fairly wide margin.

At that point, Biden took office, Covid deaths declined; the unemployment rate fell to its lowest point since before the Moon landing; and the economy grew at a healthy pace.

If Republicans want to talk about the conditions that Joe Biden inherited, we can have that conversation, but the GOP might not like where it ends up.>

<North Dakota would be the first state to set an age limit for U.S. Senate and House candidates under a measure that could go before voters in June, though it's unclear whether a state limit on federal officeholders would violate the U.S. Constitution.

The move comes at a time of heightened interest in the topic given the advanced age of some congressional leaders and the leading presidential candidates in both parties. At least one political observer said the move could be an effort to create a test case for the nation.

“It’s been an issue in North Dakota, it’s been an issue nationally,” said measure chairman Jared Hendrix, who led a successful 2022 initiative that set term limits for North Dakota’s governor and Legislature. “We don’t want to have those problems here, so it’s not some theoretical legal position. I mean, these are actual situations with real consequences." The sponsoring committee for the measure includes current and former lawmakers.

Supporters of the initiative on Friday submitted nearly 42,000 signatures, far more than the roughly 31,000 signatures required to qualify for the June 11 ballot. The secretary of state’s office has until March 15 to review the signatures.

The proposal states, “No person may be elected or appointed to serve a term or a portion of a term in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives if that person could attain 81 years of age by December 31st of the year immediately preceding the end of the term.”

North Dakota has had octogenarian senators in the past, including Democratic Sen. Quentin Burdick, who died in office in 1992 at age 84.

University of North Dakota political science professor Mark Jendrysik has said the North Dakota initiative could be an effort to create a test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to see if the court would be willing to allow states to set congressional age limits on an individual basis. In a 1995 congressional term limits case, the court ruled that states cannot set qualifications for Congress beyond those listed in the U.S. Constitution.

The initiative “looks unconstitutional” under that decision, said Mitchell Hamline School of Law Associate Professor Jason Marisam, who teaches constitutional law and election law.

“The reasoning and the logic of that case go beyond term limits and would seem to apply to age,” said Marisam, who noted the 5-4 split on the ruling, with only Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented, remaining on the court from that time. The initiative’s supporters “might want to roll the dice and see if the current court views things differently and is going to take a different position on that,” Marisam said.

If voters pass the measure, the age limit would still have to be challenged, he noted. The most concrete scenario would be a candidate who is affected by the age limit, he said.

The oldest member of North Dakota’s three-seat congressional delegation is Republican Sen. John Hoeven, who is 66.

The measure also has a “ballot advisory” to include candidates’ ages by the end of their term on the ballot if “superior law requires age-limited candidates to appear on the ballot.” The measure also appears to lay out a court process for denied candidates to challenge the age limit.

The initiative’s push emerged last summer amid age-related concerns for federal officeholders, including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who died last year at age 90 after health issues, and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, 81, who froze twice in front of reporters last year.

Last year, Texas voters rejected a measure to raise the mandatory retirement age for the judiciary from 75 to 79.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden, 81, blasted special counsel Robert Hur for saying the president had memory problems in his report into classified documents found in Biden’s possession. Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has raised age-related concerns about both Biden and former President Donald Trump, 77, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Backers of the North Dakota measure filed a federal lawsuit last year, challenging the state's constitutional provisions and laws against out-of-state petition circulators. A judge denied their request to temporarily allow such circulators, and set a bench trial for March 2025.

The initiative campaign reported over $591,000 in contributions in its 2023 year-end statement, most of that being in-kind from U.S. Term Limits.

U.S. Term Limits National Field Director Scott Tillman helped Hendrix carry boxes of petitions into the secretary’s office on Friday.

<Your choices, America, are as follows: Either you vote for “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” (words of the recent special counsel report on Biden). Or you can take what’s behind door number two: an equally aging and most certainly not well-meaning man with little grasp on reality or of truth.

Forgetful vs. dangerous.

Yes, the special counsel in President Joe Biden’s mishandled document’s case, Robert K. Hur, said the quiet part out loud. The president is like a forgetful grandpa. But make no mistake, he’s an 81-year-old good guy.

Biden is livid over the special counsel report. And it’s understandable. His detractors were just served up a delicious roadmap of his political vulnerabilities, except this isn’t new information.

He’s long revealed this side of himself. His supporters are equally kind (as Biden) and protective of him, of the presidency, to make hay over it. Now Biden is on high alert to sound like he’s got all his marbles.

Unfortunately, he’s already slipped up in media interviews, confusing Egypt’s president with Mexico’s. Those gaffes are a sad state of affairs for Biden, perhaps a flub of nerves, but not the kind of mayhem that former President Donald Trump promises if reelected. And it’s pretty clear, Trump will likely be the GOP nominee.

Hur’s findings included an assessment of Biden’s demeanor when questioned during the investigation into his mishandling of classified documents. They wound up in Biden’s garage. Photos of them are stunning as they reveal the president’s carelessness.

The assessment of Biden’s acuity came as part of the report’s explanation for why no charges will be filed. The prosecutor argued that a jury would most likely see Biden as an elderly man who is a bit forgetful.

So charges against Biden in the documents case probably wouldn’t stick. It would have been necessary to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Biden willfully mishandled the documents.

The report describes Biden as showing “limited precision and recall” – putting into words what many people feel about him.

Democrats, many life-long ones, have deep reservations about the 2024 candidacy of the current president. If victorious, he’d be 86 at the end of his second term. Trump is also up there in age – he’s 77 now.

Biden’s gaffes, some cringeworthy, are legendary and they’re not only the subject of much chatter by Republicans and rightwing cable news hosts. In his younger years, they were excused as being somewhat charming.

Biden has never been known for electric oratory. It’s important to remember that fact.

His recent gaffes are being chalked up to age decline, but it’s difficult to know what might be blamed on that or his verbal flubs that he’s displayed for quite some time.

Nevertheless, these two men will be our choices come November. Both political parties are to blame for this dismal situation.

How these two are the “best” candidates is a stunning rebuke of everything the democratic system can offer. We should put forth our best and brightest, those with the highest intellect, experience, insight and yes, morality, all of which is befitting the office of president.

To redesign a roadmap that could bring us better candidates will be work for the post-election period.

We still must await the outcomes of Trump’s various criminal cases, his own case involving mishandled classified documents and what he will be held culpable for regarding the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol.

Again, the nation has always known Biden to be a bit bumbling – a bit forgetful. He’s also never been a blustery strongman. It’s one reason his pushback on the Hur report came off awkwardly.

Rather, it is Biden’s humanity that’s always led, from his early days as a senator navigating Congress to the devastating loss of his wife and daughter in a car accident. We witnessed his faith and devotion to his second wife, as well as his grief over losing his son Beau.

We need more examples of this kind of good in Americans, not the craven greed, shocking sexism and racism that Trump has exhibited his whole life.

If reelected, Biden will again surround himself with a qualified, strong cabinet. Trump will again choose lap dogs.

These choices on the 2024 presidential ballot are not great, but they are clear.

One man, Biden, is worthy of the office. The other, Trump, most certainly is not.>

<Floccinaucinihilipilification>

Definition:

<The act or habit of estimating something as worthless.>

<The bipartisan divide, coupled with the danger of electing Donald Trump for a second time, has left many Americans in a state of mass alienation and high anxiety. That will not likely dissipate anytime soon, whether the incumbent President Joe Biden is once again victorious as in 2020 or the former president is elected for a second time.

As Malcolm Nance, a renowned expert on terrorism, extremism and insurgency, has contended, the Trump insurgency is a threat that the U.S. will have to confront for at least another generation. “The terrorists, street enforcers, militia members, Q-Anon adherents, and red-pilled Trump voters who believe the big lie collectively have the potential to drive America into civil war” or at the minimum will continue as a “slow-burning insurgency.”

A case on the latter point is the current border standoff between Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and other GOP state governors versus the U.S. federal enforcement of immigration-border laws and the SCOTUS’ recent ruling calling out Texas’s illegal actions in this matter.

Over the past several decades Americans regardless of political party have been losing their trust or faith in one another as human beings. According to various survey data, people of all parties are not psychologically feeling as connected or anchored to their local worlds as they once may have.

People are a bit colder, harder, meaner, and less empathetic than they were back in the late 1980s. More recently, people are increasingly avoiding other people and more than a few are self-isolating post COVID-19. In fact, many people enjoyed the imposed isolation during the pandemic as it made avoiding other people easier especially when they could bubble with those adults and children whom they wished to spend time with.

Overall, there has been rising anxiety and cynicism in the US – warranted and unwarranted — about government, religion, media, corporations, and the capacity of normal politics to resolve environmental conflicts from gun violence to climate change to financial looting to sexual conduct to the January 6 insurrection. The gathering anxiety and cynicism are not indivisible from the spiraling rates of mental illness especially among adolescent populations or from the bipartisan malaise regarding the potential loss and/or demise of American democracy as an existential crisis.

Bipartisan alienation reflects not only a decline in secure attachments as well as an increase in dismissive and fearful attachments, but also a growing dissatisfaction with the prevailing political, economic, and cultural conditions in America.

Demographically, the United States is not exceptional as human anxieties and political discontent are on the rise worldwide. Here the data is supportive of the idea that we are living in an “insecure-attachment” period. Discomfort with intimacies of all kinds not only sexual are on the rise and are to be avoided not only among those people with avoidant or dismissive attachment styles who are committed to their independence free of taxing partners or offspring. But also among those adults with fearful or preoccupied styles of attachment who still crave intimacy.

The data between 1988 and 2011 suggests that mental health or well-being was in slight decline. With respect to the four attachment styles and the three insecure styles combined – dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful – these increased from 51.02% in 1988 to 58.38% in 2011. And during the same period the percentage of people with a commitment to independence and non-attachment had increased from 11.93% to 18.62%.

Notably, anecdotal evidence and more recent research also suggests that Americans are growing wary of their own colleagues, neighbors, friends, partners, and parents. For example, the share of adults between the ages of 35 and 54 who had a spouse or partner in 1990 compared to 2019 fell from 67% to 53%.

While a growing number of people want to be left alone, many more are longing for personal attachments and social connections. One way among many political ways to feel connected or to belong is to become a part of Trump’s “cult of the personality” and/or to adopt one or more of the popular conspiracy theories ascribed to by Q-Anon adherents and the MAGA base.

Similarly, across the political spectrum, other ways of dealing with the rising alienation and anxiety is to hook up with similarly minded people in chatrooms or Substacks such as former US Attorney for the Norther District of Alabama Joyce Vance’s Civil Discourse with more than six million subscribers.

Individualized alienation — feelings of disconnect or of not belonging — is widespread throughout American culture. According to a nationally representative survey taken in 2022 using the Belonging Barometer, people are experiencing belonging ambiguity or exclusion. More people than not feel disconnected from three out of five life measure markings.....>

<....Those people not belonging or feeling disconnected included: 64% with their work, 68% with their nation, and 74% with their local communities. Moreover, 20% of Americans do not feel a “fit” with their friends and families.

The Belonging Barometer research has also disclosed who those people are that are more likely than not to feel that they do not belong or are detached: “Americans are more likely to report belonging if they see themselves as better off or much better off economically than the average American; are older; identify as a woman or a man (vs. another gender); or identify as heterosexual (straight) or homosexual (gay) rather than bi/pansexual, asexual, or queer.”

Importantly, neither negative attachment styles nor social alienation are inevitably self-destructive. They are also subject to self-agency or to a conscious desire to change. These flexible or malleable styles of attachment and belonging as well as those corresponding tendencies of interaction vary among social relationships as these are continuously being reshaped by changing associations.

With respect to “what is to be done,” let me paraphrase from two of the leading theorists on the subject of the alienation of people from themselves, their work, and their communities, one from the 19th century Karl Marx and one from the 20th century Frantz Fanon. For these two analysts, the key to overcoming the malaises of social alienation have nothing whatsoever to do with catching up, getting even with, or hating one’s enemies, adversaries, abusers, oppressors, and so on.

It is certainly not about reinforcing institutionalized relationships of subordination or returning to some kind of caste system where the discriminatory treatment of repressed people and other offenses against their fundamental human rights had been normalized or rationalized away for any reason. Rather, the key to overcoming the malaises of alienation is about changing the social conditions or epidemiology of this alienation and moving societies beyond common indignities, gross inequities, and identity politics.

When it comes to contemporary partisan politics, the 2024 presidential election, and those social policies affecting the alienation of others as well as the alienation of us, Trump and his groveling GOP sycophants are primarily about retribution and spreading cruelty near and far in the name only of Making America Great Again.

As an antonym to the Biden and Democratic party’s empathetic catchphrase, “we feel your pain,” an appropriate catchphrase for the vindictive Trumpian party would be, “we are your pain.” Likewise, the Democrats have been pushing a multicultural, multiracial, and multigender inclusive society with expansive individual rights for all, while the Republicans have been pushing a mono-nationalist, heterosexual, and white supremacist exclusive society with reserved individual rights for the others.

Adding to the daunting sense of anxiety, the Trump legal saga and disturbing trauma escalated to the Supreme Court this week. On Thursday, the State of Colorado argued before the high court that it can remove Trump from the 2024 ballot according to the 14th Amendment. It is a court case that would never have materialized in the first place had the GOP done its constitutional duty and impeached the former president for instituting the January 6 insurrection. The upcoming court decision should affirm the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court disqualifying Trump from the state ballot but in all likelihood the far right court will find a way to avoid doing so.

Meanwhile, Trump and his team of attorneys have found a way to merge their political and legal argument in order to push their conspiracy theory that accounts for all the former president’s “sham” lawsuits – civil and criminal – as the product of the concerted efforts of “crooked” Joe Biden and his “thugs” over at the DOJ doing their best to undermine Trump’s third run for the presidency in 2024. This “defense” however will not save Trump from almost certain convictions on all of his criminal counts.>

<Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are the two Supreme Court judges most likely to back Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim, a former federal prosecutor has said.

Separately, a law professor said that John Roberts has been a strong defender of presidential power and may agree to put a stay on Trump's election interference case.

The Supreme Court is Trump's best chance of delaying the case until after the 2024 presidential election. If elected president, Trump then would then have a number of options to end the trial, including pardoning himself or appointing a favorable attorney general who would close the case.

"If I had to guess, I would say Justices Alito and Thomas would be most receptive to the former president's appeal," Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek. Rahmani, who is now president of the West Coast Trial Lawyers law firm in California, previously prosecuted high profile criminal cases in federal court.

"It's impossible to know how the individual justices will vote, especially the newer justices. I would think they would react poorly to Trump's argument that he is immune and above the law. Agreeing to immunity would undermine the authority of the Supreme Court itself," he said.

On February 6, a D.C. appeals court rejected Trump's claim of presidential immunity, leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide whether Trump's trial can proceed before Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Tuesday's unanimous opinion from a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the former president can face trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, one of four prosecutions he is fighting as he seeks to reclaim the White House in 2024.

The judges rejected the argument that a president has "unbounded authority to commit crimes" that would prevent the recognition of election results or violate the rights of citizens to vote and have their votes count.

"We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter," the judges wrote.

Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, plans to appeal the decision. He blasted it as a "nation-destroying ruling" that "cannot be allowed to stand."

The appeals panel has given Trump until Monday, February 12, to ask the Supreme Court to get involved.

Newsweek emailed Trump's attorney on Friday seeking comment.

Chutkan, who is overseeing the election interference trial in Washington, D.C., also rejected the immunity argument, ruling in December that the office of the presidency "does not confer a 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."

She put the case on hold while Trump pursued his immunity claims, and last week she postponed the scheduled March 4 trial date. Trump is accused of illegally interfering in the 2020 presidential election, including encouraging the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers told Newsweek that Chief Justice John Roberts may be instrumental in stopping the trial until the court can decide on Trump's presidential immunity.

"Roberts has been a strong defender of presidential power. He may see the circuit opinion as a threat to that power... If Roberts supports a stay, there will likely be the five votes needed to put the case on ice."

"But if Roberts opposes a stay, others may go along and give Chutkan a green light. So it may all depend on Roberts," he said.>

The following flawed, but interesting struggle features two of the toughest opponents I used to face in that 'easy' region of Vermont called Boston:

<[Event "Boylston August Open"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1982.08.15"]
[EventDate "1982"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Stopa, John"]
[Black "Rizzitano, James A"]
[ECO "C04"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Eastern Class Championships"] [Site "Woburn Mass"]
[Date "1994.03.11"]
[EventDate "1994"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Tapper, Larry"]
[Black "Ivanov, Alexander"]
[ECO "B07"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "23rd World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1995.07.??"]
[EventDate "1995"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Olson, David L"]
[Black "Tapper, Larry"]
[ECO "B01"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "23rd World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1995.07.??"]
[EventDate "1995"]
[Round "2"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Tapper, Larry"]
[Black "Ibragimov, Ildar"]
[ECO "C85"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Au Bon Pain Open"] [Site "Cambridge Mass"]
[Date "1985.09.24"]
[EventDate "1985"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Fang, Christopher"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "B14"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

Earlier on, you mentioned Pavel Oberreiter and Arnie Dubow sharing the title; I have no idea except a vague recollection of Pavel getting at least a share of it.

<[Event "23rd World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1995.07.??"]
[EventDate "1995"]
[Round "4"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Tapper, Larry"]
[Black "Basallo, Nirio"]
[ECO "B07"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]