<The American people expected Franklin D. Roosevelt to bring an end to the Great Depression. But his administration struggled to do so and like most politicians—and FDR was shrewder than most—he found ways to blame others for his failure.

One particular bogeyman was the United States Supreme Court, which kept finding FDR's recovery measures unconstitutional and was, therefore, easy to blame for the continued economic difficulties.

By 1937, FDR had had enough. He proposed a plan to "pack the Court" with new Justices he would appoint and whom the Senate would confirm to serve alongside those already on the Court.

In the short run, this gambit failed. The public reacted to it adversely and, at election time, gave the Democrats their worst electoral results in nearly a decade. Voters recognized that changing the number of Justices on the Court to change the thrust of their decisions was cheating. The Constitution, as they understood it then and as is still true today, says what it means and means what it says. FDR's attempt to load the Supreme Court with members who would rubber-stamp his legislative program, regardless of its constitutionality, violated the precepts on which the nation was founded.

In the long run though, FDR won. The Justices who stood in the way of New Deal reforms started to retire, and were replaced by men who found the market interventions at the heart of the New Deal more constitutionally consistent than their predecessors had.

History does have a way of repeating itself. The progressives who've now seized control of the Democratic Party see the current Supreme Court as standing in the way of what they want to accomplish. To them, the Court is a bastion of conservatism and originalist thinking that will use its power to defeat all efforts to expand the size and scope of the modern American welfare state.

The only way around that obstacle is to pack the Court with liberals who agree that the Constitution is a living, breathing document open to interpretations that must change with the times.

There are two ways progressives can do that. One is to enlarge the Court, as FDR tried and failed to do. The other is to discredit the Court or at least enough of its sitting Justices to force resignations or impeachments.

That's why Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has promised to file articles of impeachment against the Justices who sided with the majority in the Court's limited ruling on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. She and her allies have distorted the impact of that ruling to the extreme so they can argue the Court has abandoned its responsibilities or has become hopelessly corrupt.

If they can do this, Ocasio-Cortez and others likely reason, then they can open up a few seats Joe Biden can fill with new Justices who will vote to overturn Dobbs v. Jackson, District of Columbia v. Heller, Loper Bright v. Raimondo, and all the other decisions they don't like.

We've seen this before, too. Conservatives didn't like Chief Justice Earl Warren and often talked of impeaching him. They even wrote songs about it, but none of that went anywhere. The Court finally changed, adopting a more originalist philosophy, but only after a long and arduous process that took decades.

Liberals can't wait that long. They feel they have a moral imperative that allows the ends to justify the means. Rewriting the rules is okay, just like rewriting the Constitution through judicial decisions rather than using the amendment process is okay. It's quicker and easier, and they do it well, while going through regular channels often doesn't get them where they want to go.

Don't be surprised if you soon hear crowds of leftists calling for Chief Justice John Roberts' resignation. One way or another, count on them to subvert existing democratic norms to try and get their way. They'll either drive public confidence in the Court down to a point where they believe the public will demand the appointment of three or four new Justices, or they'll try to follow through with their threats to remove Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts so they can establish a liberal majority with new Justices of Biden's choosing.

They can try, but most Americans who are not part of the coastal elite still value things like rules and fair play. They'll recognize these efforts to change the Court's composition for what they are. In this country, we don't let people win by cheating.>

<Any hope that executives at Fox News could stiff-arm and drag out the defamation lawsuit filed against them by voting technology company Smartmatic following the 2020 presidential election took a serious hit after a billionaire investor came to their rescue.

According to a report from the Washington Post, billionaire Linkedin co-founder Reid Hoffman has invested millions in the company that will allow it to bolster their legal battle with the media giant.

With Fox having already settled with Dominion Voting Systems to the tune of $787.5 million to make their 2020 election conspiracy defamation case go away, Smartmatic can now avoid being forced to drop their suit due to lack of funds.

Noting that Hoffman was a behind-the-scenes backer of New York writer E. Jean Carroll lawsuits against Donald Trump that led to the former president getting hit with $89 million in judgments, the tech billionaire is once against a player in a lawsuit tied to Trump — in this case his election loss.

As the Post's Jeremy Barr is reporting, Hoffmann explained his move in statement, writing: “Smartmatic built a global business by using technology to better engage citizens, regardless of party or ideology, by making voting simple and trustworthy,” before adding, “After Donald Trump lost in 2020, however, Smartmatic became a target of the defamatory campaign to overturn his defeat.”

Speaking for Hoffman, spokesperson Dmitri Mehlhorn elaborated, "Not only is Smartmatic a great investment in terms of financial returns, this was a way to provide capital that would allow the truth to be found in the courts. This is a company that is a great company with a great CEO, and this case is a great case.”

The Post report goes on to note that "billionaires have previously wielded unexpected influence in media defamation battles. Peter Thiel, who co-founded PayPal, paid about $10 million to help finance a lawsuit filed by the wrestler Hulk Hogan against Gawker Media. Thiel had taken a dislike to Gawker after the gossip-focused website published unflattering articles about him and his associates. When Hogan won a $140 million judgment against Gawker, the company was forced into bankruptcy.(Hoffman was an early executive at PayPal, and both he and Thiel are part of the 'PayPal mafia.')"

Hoffman spokesperson Melhorn admitted, "When Reid deploys financial capital, that always has a philosophical element of protecting the rule of law. We’ve always thought the court system was an important part of the battle to protect America from MAGA.”>

<Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) was removed from the conservative House Freedom Caucus on Monday night just weeks after the Ohio Republican endorsed the primary challenger to caucus Chairman Bob Good (R-VA).

The group voted to oust Davidson from its ranks during a closed-door meeting on Monday, two sources familiar with the decision confirmed to the Washington Examiner. The vote comes just weeks after Davidson publicly endorsed Virginia state Sen. John McGuire, who narrowly defeated Good in the state's primary last month.

Davidson was the only member of the Freedom Caucus to endorse against the chairman, although he had argued his backing was solely about the “men on the ballot” rather than any proxy war of factions in the Republican Party.

“As a longstanding member and former board member of the House Freedom Caucus, my endorsement of John McGuire should convey the opposite message. This Congressional race was never about the Freedom Caucus,” Davidson said in a statement at the time. “I hope my endorsement for John McGuire made a difference and I look forward to serving alongside him in the 119th Congress to support President Trump’s efforts to Drain the Swamp.”

However, Davidson's removal is likely to cause a ripple effect in the conservative corners of the House GOP. One Freedom Caucus member, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), has said he now plans to resign from the group over Davidson's removal.

"I respect the HFC and have been aligned with their conservative positions. I want to grow the organization and encourage more members to join," Nehls said in a statement. "With tonight’s vote, it was clear that is not their objective. I value what the HFC brings to the table and I can assure them I will continue to support their conservative agenda I just won’t be a member."

A spokesperson for the Freedom Caucus declined to offer a statement on the matter, noting it does not comment on internal decisions.

The Freedom Caucus was first formed in 2015 by a group of conservative lawmakers looking to establish themselves as “smaller, more cohesive, more agile, and more active,” according to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who was the chairman at the time of its founding. Caucus members have closely aligned with former President Donald Trump, and the group consists of many of his staunch allies on Capitol Hill.

But that dynamic experienced a slight shift when the caucus elected Good as its newest chairman in January.

Good had also angered Trump when he endorsed Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) for the GOP presidential nomination last year. Good later switched his endorsement to Trump after DeSantis suspended his campaign, but that wasn’t enough to appease the former president, who endorsed McGuire.

Trump's endorsement helped boost McGuire to a narrow victory over Good, defeating the incumbent by just 374 votes. The Virginia Republican Party certified those results last week to resolve a monthslong saga that split House conservatives, resulting in a feud between Good and several of his Republican colleagues.

Good has vowed to request a recount. If the results are confirmed, Good will become only the second House incumbent to lose his primary election after Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) lost his primary challenge last week. It would also make Good the first Freedom Caucus chairman to be defeated in a primary or general election race.>

<Society /

The effects of the high court’s rulings will be enduring and almost impossible to overturn without a serious reckoning by Democratic lawmakers.

Elie Mystal

The just completed Supreme Court term will initiate a seismic shift in the distribution of power in the American republic. The effects of the court’s rulings this term will have a bigger impact on the rule of law and our political future than anything the court has done since 1857’s Dred Scott decision.

I simply cannot overstate the significance of what has just happened. In one single month, the Supreme Court: legalized bribery of public officials, declared the President of the United States absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for “official” acts, and made the power to issue regulations subject to the court’s unelected approval.

When we widen the aperture to look at the whole term, we find that the court also ruled that people who fail in their violent attempts to reverse the results of an election can run for office in the very next election; would-be mass shooters can buy attachments to change their weapons into machine guns; and white state legislatures can systematically remove all Black people from their districts and call it “politics.” And as if to add a dose of unvarnished cruelty to its machinations, the court also ruled that insurrectionists who attack the capitol and obstruct the work of Congress cannot be charged with a crime but homeless people sleeping on the streets can be sent to jail.

These rulings mean that the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, gets the final word on what regulations Congress really wanted to pass, and which crimes presidents are allowed to commit. And the justices themselves can be paid, handsomely, for their opinions should interested parties and wealthy donors would like to give them a “gratuity” for ruling in ways that please those monied interests.

Folks, we can’t “come back” from this. There is no presidential order or legislative action that can undo all of the evils committed by the Supreme Court. This is different from what’s happened before. In 2012, when the court gutted the most important piece of legislation in American history, the Voting Rights Act, there were immediate calls for Congress to pass legislation restoring what the court took away. Obviously, Congress hasn’t done that because Republicans are against Black people voting, and Democrats, even when they have power, are against doing anything that would upset Senate traditions. But, at a minimum, the possibility existed that legislation could fix what the Supreme Court had broken (at least until the Supreme Court overruled those legislative fixes).

Similarly, in 2022, when the court took away a constitutional right for the first time in American history and overturned Roe v. Wade, there were immediate calls for Congress to pass legislation restoring what the court took away. Obviously, that hasn’t happened, because Republicans are against women having equal rights and Democrats are against doing anything that would upset Senate traditions—but, again, the possibility of a remedy existed.

This time, there’s no legislative fix for the problems the court has created. Consider the proposition that presidents are no longer subject to criminal laws. The court has ruled that, as a matter of the constitutional separation of powers, nobody has the right to prosecute presidents for crimes as long as the president claims that committing crimes is part of their job. Congress cannot reinstate criminal penalties the court says are unconstitutional in the first place.

Meanwhile, when it comes to government regulations you may have heard people—specifically, Republicans speaking in bad faith—claim that Congress just has to write better laws instead of leaving it to the executive agencies to fill in the gaps. But that is simply not a reasonable or feasible expectation.

Congress doesn’t know how much lead is allowed to be in water before it damages the brains of the people who drink it. It doesn’t know how fast an industrial thresher should be allowed to operate before it becomes a death trap operated by a Bond villain. It doesn’t know if taking a submarine piloted with a PlayStation controller to visit the Titanic is a good idea or not. Experts know these things. Congress cannot write laws detailed enough for them to avoid needing to be filled out by experts in the relevant field. By placing itself over the executive agencies, the Supreme Court makes itself not judges, but regulators who are allowed to assert their guesses over the judgments of scientists and professionals....>

<....The Supreme Court is the only branch of government which claims the power to rule unchecked by the other branches of government. If Congress passes a law, the court claims authority to overrule it. If the president issues an order or regulation, the court claims the power to overrule them. If a state legislature or governor passes a rule or ordinance, the court claims the power to overrule them. And if voters attempt to elect leaders, the court claims the authority to overrule them by literally picking whose votes should be counted or recounted—to say nothing of who gets to vote in the first place.

This is not how a democracy or a republic is supposed to work. Supreme power is not supposed to reside in the hands of unelected officials who have been appointed for life. In fact, this is not how our democracy is supposed to work: The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court these powers—the court has invented them for itself.

There are only two ways to deal with this Supreme Court: ignore its rulings or flood it with new justices who will give back the power this court has stolen from the rest of us. The first option, most likely, leads directly to civil war—one where the rule of law can be imposed only by military force under the sole discretion of whoever happens to be the president, assuming that president commands the loyalty of the military. Democracy cannot long exist if laws have meaning only when the president decides to enforce them at the point of a gun.

The second option, court expansion, is the normal, peaceful, constitutional solution to a court that no longer believes it can be checked by other institutions. Adding justices who are going to act within the bounds of their constitutional authority is the only peaceful way to save ourselves from the ones who won’t. I support court expansion because it is the simple, legal, and nonviolent way to counteract the corrupt and power-hungry court.

But many Democrats do not. President Joe Biden does not. He, like so many others in his party, would rather allow the Supreme Court to be the only power that matters in this country, leaving the rest of us to squabble endlessly over the scraps of self-government the court lets fall from its table of real authority. For many Democrats, pretending to hold power is more important than actually using power to do the work of the American people over the objection of the Supreme Court.

For Republicans, the Supreme Court is a boon. Republican-control of the Supreme Court allows them to pass an agenda, by a vote of 6-3, that they couldn’t get through the elected branches of government. That’s because the Republican agenda of mass shootings, forced-birth, corruption, and criminality is extremely unpopular. Voters do not like Republican policies, but the Supreme Court literally doesn’t have to care about what voters want. Republicans have set up a system where either Republicans win elections—or elections do not matter.

The conservative justices fear nothing: not the people, not the Congress, and certainly not the Democrats. They are drunk on their own power because nobody will cut off their supply. The Supreme Court rules the country in unchecked, unaccountable fashion, yet most people cannot name the justices and wouldn’t recognize them if one of the justices was holding a gun to their head.

Now, they’re going to take the summer off to let the politicians act like they’re important and the voters feel like they’re making a difference. But they’ll be back this time next year, and they will continue to do all the things Republicans want that nobody elected them to do.>

<Joe Biden's presidency has been compared to Lyndon Baines Johnson’s for its highly significant reshaping of domestic policy. But here’s another comparison which has not been embraced—and should be: the crucial role of Lady Bird Johnson in creating and executing the strategy that resulted in LBJ bowing out after a single elected term.

It’s a comparison that our current first lady should study closely, because these next few days may be the most consequential of her life.

The parallels between Jill Biden and Lady Bird Johnson are clear: both were senator’s wives and second ladies before entering the East Wing; both faced roiling crises—civil rights, COVID, Jan. 6, Israel—tearing at America’s social fabric. Now, like Lady Bird, Jill must help her husband make the ultimate choice: to run or not to run for a second term.

When LBJ grudgingly accepted the vice-presidential slot on JFK’s 1960 ticket, he was Senate majority leader; the role was a demotion by any light. For him, it was “like trying to swallow a nettle: hurt, sticky, spiny,” in Lady Bird’s account, as detailed in my book, Lady Bird Johnson: Hiding in Plain Sight. But as second lady, while her husband wallowed, she began to thrive. An often despondent Jackie Kennedy tossed her a large chunk of her ceremonial duties. Yet Lady Bird accepted them with aplomb.

For the Johnsons, promotion to the presidency and the role of first lady not by election but by assassination was far worse than choking on a nettle. At first, Lady Bird genuinely believed they were caretakers and would stay in office only for 13 months. But six months into the presidency, and as a devout New Deal Democrat, she began to believe that LBJ—with her help—had the chance to make good on the domestic policy agenda—particularly civil rights and universal health care—that FDR’s death in 1945 had left unrealized.

But she had two problems to overcome. One was LBJ himself; the other was the country.

LBJ lived under the cloud of depression and, after a massive heart attack almost killed him in 1955, the prospect of not living to finish out even a first full term was real. As much as LBJ has been painted as the embodiment of power, his formidable ability to exercise it came at a huge cost to his mental and physical health. Serving as Senate majority leader had almost killed him; the presidency might finish the job.

Lady Bird’s fears were voiced as early as May 1964, when the inexorable pull into the unwinnable morass of Vietnam was only just beginning. Lady Bird by then well understood, as she wrote in her diary, “the depth of [Lyndon’s] pain, when and if he faces up to the possibility of sending many American boys to Vietnam or some other place.”

LBJ was worried less by his ability to beat Barry Goldwater in November than by his capacity to hold public support and to govern going forward.

Despite her stiff and two-dimensional public persona, Lady Bird Johnson possessed deep reserves of wisdom, stamina and, crucially for her husband, political judgment. And she was the only person in his immediate circle whom Lyndon trusted without reserve.

That May, she retreated to the Huntland estate in Virginia and, at LBJ’s request, wrote him a strategy memo. The Huntland memo set forth the idea that LBJ commit to one full term in office—she didn’t want him to retire early and drive her crazy back at the Ranch. “If you win,” she concluded, “let’s do the best we can for three years and three or four months.” And then, in “February or March 1968” she proposed, announce that he would not run for a second term.>

<....Of course, LBJ ran and defeated Goldwater and, before Vietnam became the intractable crisis, passed the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society legislation which Joe Biden considers his inspiration.

By fall 1967, though, the mood in the country had turned. After living in what she described as “insulated against life” at the White House, Lady Bird began her own shift when appearances on American campuses to promote her environmentalism were drowned out by protest and as one daughter’s fiancé and another’s husband prepared to deploy to Vietnam.

“I want to know what’s going on—even if to know is to suffer,” she said. She had already begun counting the days to the end of his term and in October of that year launched her campaign to focus Lyndon on the timing of his public announcement that he would not run for a second term.

She helped draft his January 1968 State of the Union; in his breast pocket was tucked a section announcing he would not run, but he decided not to deliver it. Instead, it was on March 31, 1968, in an Oval Office address purportedly about Vietnam that her husband explained his decision not to stand as a candidate for re-election.

The campaign was too consuming, the priorities of the presidency as he saw it- a peace process with Vietnam, a deeper civil rights expansion—had to be his focus. “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.”

Lady Bird had helped draft this speech too, but it was her quiet strategy nearly four years in the making that LBJ embraced that night and that our current first lady can learn from.

Coaxing someone she loves out of doing what he loves—and Joe Biden clearly loves his job and relishes the potential of a second term—may well be the hardest moment of Jill Biden’s own political career. But it may be as consequential as saving the American republic this fall.>

<The right-wing publication Breitbart is up in arms over two recent European elections in which nationalist parties did relatively well in the popular vote but, due to the respective rules in place, failed to win a proportionate share of parliamentary seats. Donald Trump then amplified these articles on his Truth Social platform to make sure his base would be appropriately outraged over this grave injustice.

In the British parliamentary election last Thursday, the Reform UK party of right-wing loon Nigel Farage earned 14.3 percent of the popular vote. However, due to the UK’s “first-past-the-post” electoral system, the party only won five of 650 seats in parliament.

No matter how you feel about Farage, that doesn’t seem fair. And his wasn’t the only party affected. The Greens gained 6.8 percent of the vote but only won four seats.

Things were a bit different in France, where Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (NR) received the most votes but only came in third place with regard to parliamentary seats won. That’s because the main left-wing and centrist parties struck a deal to withdraw some of their candidates in districts where they otherwise would have split the vote and opened the door for NR candidates.

Still, it is another example of an electoral system that seems unjust because the person/party receiving the most votes does not necessarily win.

Obviously, this would upset Breitbart readers and Trump voters.

Boy, are they going to be mad when they learn about the Electoral College.

Certainly, they will be just as distressed about a system that allows candidates like Trump, who received millions of fewer votes both in 2016 and 2020, to become president.

(Editor’s Note: Even following a thorough search, we were unable to find any stories on Breitbart hinting at Trump’s 2016 victory being tainted because he was clearly not the people’s choice. If you find such an article, please send it to https://whowhatwhy.org/contact/).

Of course, the irony of this may be lost on most MAGA supporters, who will note that we are talking about parliamentary elections in Europe (although the UK election did result in a new prime minister).

OK, fine.

However, if proportional voting were used, Republicans would also not be competitive in the Senate… or in many state legislatures.

And, if congressional districts weren’t gerrymandered to smithereens, and Democrats put up candidates in every race, the GOP would lose the House as well.

So maybe, just maybe, Trump and his supporters should not point out flaws in electoral systems that deny equal representation or put people in power who, according to the will of the people, don’t belong there.

That being said, there is a difference between the UK, France, and the US.

After their losses, the right-wing candidates in Europe didn’t make up a massive lie because they couldn’t handle their defeats… and it also stands to reason that neither Farage nor Le Pen will attempt any coups.>

<Reading one insightful article after another parsing the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, I am struck by the precision and grasp of case details the authors exhibit.

But I want more. Much more.

I know that will be coming — on editorial pages and such. But I worry it won’t be enough.

The real import of what has taken place will not be fully and frankly revealed to the public, and — as bad — no one will be able to come up with a realistic remedy.

We now see clearly what happens when a segment of the fairest, most decent people becomes apathetic and resigned: A stunningly bad guy took power, then appointed people who gave him even more power. And though he lost the last election, he will likely return to power, stronger and more vicious than ever.

In case you didn’t know, that’s Trump and Company I’m talking about. But decades ago, when this all began, courts actually stopped the Nixon administration from taking over the entire federal government and wielding it in a reckless and self-serving way. Today, that authoritarian dream is fast becoming the reality — and the courts themselves have been co-opted for these sinister ends.

At WhoWhatWhy, we’ve long highlighted the wholesale ruination of the Supreme Court — essentially the channeling of vast amounts of money and a thousand subterfuges over many years to commandeer justice and take it out of the hands of the people. (Go here, here, here, and here.)

Through massively subsidized court cases like Citizens United, this master plan also consolidated power and wealth in fewer and fewer hands. It took the restrictions off political funding and ensured that vast oligarchical sums could be deployed to hire a small army of of fanatical and/or cynical people to devise legal strategies, weaponize social media, write deceptive emails and ads, and qualify and quantify the public psyche to take advantage of built-in weaknesses in the US body politic. Weaknesses that include the lack of cultural homogeneity in the US, which is, simultaneously, its fundamental weakness and its most powerful asset.

So clever are the minds that dark agenda money can buy, they figured out a way to convince people who actually are doing just fine that they are, instead, victims and perpetually under attack. And they mobilized them — while the rest of the country remains oblivious to the unfolding catastrophe.

A lot of people simply do not understand the gravity of the situation, or do not much care.

Quite possibly, the whole subject has been so normalized, or seems too arcane, too complex, too hard to grasp. In a world of endless on-demand content choices, it’s pretty clear what folks will find most palatable.

And what of Donald Trump himself?

Simply put, a congenital criminal and convicted felon whose moral compass only points to True Trump was able to select his own judges, and will never face True Justice.

People with profoundly dangerous views have been steadily moving into positions of power and paving the way for an America of vigilante vengeance, brutality, unenlightened selfishness, and breathtaking ignorance.

That’s what is going on. And it will get much worse rapidly, unless it is halted.

The only way to stop this march of tyranny is for every American to understand what’s happening — and to decide to do something about it. The beguiled, snookered, and easily-stoked legions led by their manipulators are already on the march, pitchforks and now-legally concealed handguns and bump stocked rifles ready. It’s past time to step up.

If everyone in this country were to vote, we might at least begin to turn this thing around. Those bought and paid for judges, and the wily ringmasters — like the Federalist Society wonks — who engineered their ascension, will be with us for a long time. Let’s not also give them a puppet Congress and president in lockstep.>

<Joe Biden’s self-inflicted electoral crisis is a classic case study in the “sunk cost fallacy.” As Vice President Kamala Harris and party leaders pour resources into the president’s flailing campaign, the argument that Biden is the only one who can defeat Donald Trump in November and “protect democracy” is increasingly falling on electoral and donor deaf ears.

Coined in 1980 by economist Richard Thaler, the sunk-cost fallacy describes a cognitive bias that leads people to double down on failed strategies in which they have invested time, resources and emotional energy.

Thaler used this concept to describe the irrational decisions that went into the failed multibillion-dollar effort in the 1960s and 1970s to build the supersonic Concorde jet. As an executive leadership coach to CEOs and founders, I have identified three lessons from Biden’s failure to ensure his party’s success in November and three tactical recommendations. Otherwise, he faces a serious risk: becoming the Concorde of politics.

There are three takeaways. First, it’s important for leaders in any field, be it business or politics, to build a succession plan and a deep bench should they get “hit by a bus,” literally or figuratively. They must train their successors assiduously and give them all their wisdom and knowledge to step in should the need arise. Above all, instead of constantly investing in themselves, they must get out of the spotlight and let those new leaders shine — something Biden has failed to do.

Next is an insight a former tech founder gave me when I entered the C-suite: “Understand that your biggest strengths could also be your biggest weaknesses. And you must compensate for that.”

In Biden’s case, his stubbornness and loyalty have helped him overcome tremendous odds in life and work, bounce back from tragedies, and build strong teams that have followed him throughout his career. However, those traits have resulted in tunnel vision and “savior syndrome,” thinking he is the only one who can “save” America....>

<....Third, great leaders not only turn to their trusted circle for advice but also know how to build concentric circles of honest brokers who have no vested interest in the outcome — and aren’t afraid to disagree with these leaders, no matter how powerful. They remind their circles that they need honest advice, no matter how unpalatable. The president’s reputed loyalty has resulted in his refusal to let people go, resulting in a stagnant team of staffers and power-hungry advisers who allowed him to become a sitting duck on the debate stage. Somewhere along the line, his team stopped telling Biden the truth, with embarrassing consequences.

Based on these takeaways, Biden should step out of the way gracefully and ensure that the best person from the Democratic Party’s deep bench of younger talent can take his place. As a “Khive” of buzz builds for Harris to lead the presidential ticket, Biden should listen and exit stage left.

Unfortunately, it’s likely that for all the reasons he is in this predicament today, Biden convinces himself or is convinced by others to stay the course.

Truly, as often happens with gamblers waging sunk cost fallacies, it was a high-risk move to do the extended interview with ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, and it’ll be more “sunk costs” for Biden to do other spontaneous live events without teleprompters. Any missteps will add fuel to the fire, as the president acknowledged last week, according to the New York Times. He knows he has little time to turn the tide on the growing calls from his own party, voters and donors to step down.

If Biden decides to stay the course, there are three tactical tips to survive those interviews and live events.

First, he can’t insult his voters and base. Biden must acknowledge that he has worked hard to achieve all he has accomplished and that age and fatigue have caught up with him. He can then note that if he is old, so is Donald Trump, and that perhaps his opponent looks and feels healthier because he has not worked as hard or has accomplished as much.

Second, Biden needs to keep it simple. He must avoid his biggest weaknesses, which, at his age and state of mind, are names and numbers, and highlight his accomplishments in simple words, not high-level platitudes or complicated numbers that he is bound to botch. Stick to themes and anecdotes. Emphasize the practical impacts of his policies. Have potholes been fixed? Jobs created? Healthcare expanded? What’s the bottom line?

He must speak with his heart, not his brain.

Finally, Biden must remind voters of what’s important. In addition to his legislative and global leadership successes, he must dispel the false equivalency that his failed debate performance has fueled: that voters are now stuck between two equally bad candidates. Biden must remind them that he has done everything in his power to protect democracy while his opponent is hell-bent on destroying it, and that’s what separates them the most.

Throughout his life, Biden has exemplified some of the traits of great leaders: honesty, integrity, loyalty, steadfastness, stick-to-it-iveness, and the ability to bring policy debates back to what matters most to the average American.

Now, Biden must exercise other key leadership traits — self-awareness, sacrifice, and stewardship — that will put him in the history books as the president who put America and the world above his own ambition.

The problem with sunk cost is that the second path is often summarily dismissed. That’s exactly what Biden and his team have done — and what Trump hopes the president will continue to do.>

Also, your win over Rizzatano at 1983 GBO. Blew him away in 25 moves with a Caro Kahn!

Fourth game of your match with Murry Turnball. Solid defense by you and he pressed too hard. Missed a combo at the end.

Commission by omission for whatever reason was the method, but now nothing at all on a feature which is updated as a matter of course.

<A dramatic divide is erupting in the far-right House Freedom Caucus after the group voted to oust a third member in the span of a year.

The ejection of Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, was led by allies of Chairman Bob Good, R-Va., Politico reported. Good recently lost a primary election for his district in Virginia – the only congressional Republican to do so – and Davidson openly backed Good’s challenger, the Trump-ensorsed [sic] John McGuire.

Good’s allies believed Davidson’s endorsement of McGuire violated rules against publicly attacking a fellow member and merited his removal from the group, Axios reported. Caucus members voted to oust Davidson 16-13, but the vote occurred when some of Davidson’s allies weren’t present.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Politico he disagreed with the decision and acknowledged that it could lead to resignations among the group’s members.

“I voted against it and spoke against it. … I’ve always been opposed to that,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Politico.

One member has already left. Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, resigned immediately after Davidson’s ousting.

According to caucus bylaws, members usually only fall out of good standing if they miss meetings or don’t pay their dues. Davidson didn’t have issues with either.

Historically, the caucus has been tight-lipped when it comes to speaking on internal matters, but the increasing division between old and new members who joined during and post-Trump has led to some to begin speaking out publicly, according to Politico.

In October, the decision to oust House Speaker Kevin McCarthy caused a major divide in the caucus. Earlier this year, the group voted to remove Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., over her feud with fellow member Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo. The group also split over whether to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson.

"Back stabbing Bob Good and the Never Trump freedom caucus members are the problem. They have destroyed the freedom caucus and have made it ineffective," Greene posted on X after Davidson’s removal.

Good, who has publicly stated he will request a recount in his primary election, will likely step down as speaker once his loss is formalized, sources told Axios.>

<Rudy Giuliani interrupted his bankruptcy hearing after an attorney said he would commit fraud.

He is $152 million in debt, almost all of which is owed to election workers he defamed. Giuliani scored a legal win as the bankruptcy judge said he'd likely dismiss the case, allowing appeals.

Rudy Giuliani erupted during a bankruptcy hearing Wednesday morning, interrupting the proceedings to complain it was "defamatory" to suggest he would commit bankruptcy crimes by hiding his assets.

His interruption came as Rachel Strickland, an attorney representing two Georgia election workers whom Giuliani defamed and owes $148 million, urged the judge to dismiss the bankruptcy case and allow the claims against Giuliani to play out in different courts.

Keeping the case in bankruptcy court would inevitably lead to Giuliani hiding his assets and being charged with bankruptcy crimes, Strickland said.

"We will all be stayed while the trustee in this court wades through the morass of sexual assault and other allegations while Mr. Giuliani continues to play golf," Strickland said, her voice scathing.

Giuliani's attorneys appeared in person in Manhattan's bankruptcy court for the hearing, but Giuliani himself called in by phone.

"Ted! Would you get them on the phone and stop—" Giuliani shouted, appearing to refer to his spokesperson Ted Goodman.

"Alright, someone's got a live microphone, and that's not a good situation," the bankruptcy judge said.

As muffled noises continued to emerge from Giuliani's phone line, the judge, Sean H. Lane, tried to silence it.

"We keep having that same telephone pop up," Lane said. "Let me ask in court if we can make sure to have that muted, please."

"Your honor, this is the Rudolph Giuliani," Giuliani said amid the static of his phone. He asked for a break to talk to his lawyers and address Strickland's "defamatory remarks."

Lane asked Giuliani to wait his turn to speak. Later in the hearing, Giuliani's attorney Gary Fischoff assured the court that his client would not commit bankruptcy fraud.

"I just wanted to state something for the record," Fischoff said. "There were some statements that the debtor would commit bankruptcy fraud. So I just wanted to state for the record that Mr. Giuliani, the debtor, would not commit any bankruptcy fraud."

Wednesday's bankruptcy hearing comes at a major turning point for Giuliani's bankruptcy process — where he may actually score a major legal win.

Giuliani filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December, shortly after a jury in Washington, DC, found him liable for $148 million in damages for defaming Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, the two election workers who he falsely claimed manipulated ballots in the 2020 election.

The bankruptcy filing paused their lawyers from enforcing the judgment against them, which formed nearly all of his $152 million in debt....>

<....It also paused all the other civil cases against Giuliani, including a sexual abuse lawsuit from Noelle Dunphy and another defamation lawsuit from the election technology company Dominion Voting Systems.

Over the past seven months, Giuliani has tried to buy time with motions to slow down the bankruptcy process as he appeals the $148 million judgment.

At the same time, creditors have accused Giuliani of filing misleading and incomplete financial statements, and of hiding streams of income.

They asked Lane to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee, who would have the power to seize legal control of his assets and sell them to satisfy everyone who was owed money. The trustee also may be able to waive attorney-client privilege on Giuliani's behalf, possibly opening him up to further legal risk.

But in court filings this week, lawyers for Giuliani, Freeman, and Moss all agreed that dismissing the bankruptcy case entirely would be the best course of action.

They said Giuliani would agree not to file for bankruptcy again for another year, giving time for appeals in the $148 million defamation judgment to play out.

"It is in the interest of creditors for their claims to be heard in the forum of their choosing" and not bankruptcy court, Strickland said in Wednesday's hearing.

Lane said he was inclined to agree and dismiss the bankruptcy, citing "the difficulties we've had in terms of transparency in this case."

"That's not going to magically change if you continue the case in 11 with the trustee," Lane said.

The judge said that a Chapter 11 trustee could easily liquidate Giuliani's two apartments and jewelry, which comprise the bulk of his estimated $8 million estate.

But liquidating Giuliani's other assets, like his media company and coffee operation, would be difficult to disentangle from the former New York City mayor's personal brand, he said. Dealing with those could incur expenses that would ultimately come out of the pockets of creditors who were owed money, the judge said.

Philip Dublin, an attorney representing the other creditors in the bankruptcy — including Dunphy and Dominion — objected to that plan.

He said the best way to fairly split Giuliani's assets would be to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee who would liquidate Giuliani's assets.

But Strickland said her clients had priority — and they wanted the case dismissed.

"We are the significant focus of the case," she said. "We are $148 million."

The judge said he would issue an order by Friday and asked the parties to meet and figure out how to pay expenses for a discovery vendor, a third-party company that has already done months of work obtaining and organizing Giuliani's records for the case.

Lane also said he would not approve Giuliani's preferred backup plan of converting the bankruptcy process from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, which would allow him to save future income for himself while liquidating his current assets.

Justin Kelton, an attorney representing Dunphy, told Business Insider that she would continue to pursue her sexual abuse claims in court if the judge dismissed the bankruptcy case.

"Our client Noelle Dunphy remains as strong and steadfast as ever in her commitment to pursuing justice," he said. "If Mr. Giuliani's bankruptcy is dismissed, she will continue pursuing her claims in court, and we look forward to the day when we can present this case to a jury."

Giuliani has brought upon himself a barrage of indignities as he falsely insisted that the 2020 election results were rigged.

In addition to his numerous civil cases, the former US attorney and personal lawyer to Donald Trump was disbarred in New York and is on the verge of losing his law license in Washington, DC.

He was also indicted in two criminal cases, in Georgia and Arizona, over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in those states.>

<A Republican lawmaker received an angry check Wednesday from a House Democrat who found himself forced to remind his fellow committee members they were not hunting communists amid a post-global war Red Scare.

Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD) shouted down fellow Oversight Committee member Glen Clay Higgins (R-LA) for a line of questioning that Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael S. Regan likened to an assault.

"It's not the McCarthy era," roared Mfume. "It's not the McCarthy committee."

Tensions had mounted quickly after Higgins delivered a wrathful soliloquy against the EPA's efforts to curb CO emissions from aircraft engines.

"He's the one that's agenda-driven, not me," barked Higgins. "To have an agenda-driven green new deal, anti-American, anti-American energy, anti-American petrol-chemical agenda shoved down our throat by an administration that claims it's doing so on behalf of protecting the world's ecological stability...that is hypocrisy at its worst."

Higgins then demanded to know of Regan what his plans were the future were and shouted the administrator down when he replied, "My plans are personal."

Regan doubled down on his refusal.

"With you just assaulting me and saying I'm un-American?" Regan replied. "Now you want to know my plans—"

Higgins cut him off to declare, "We're definitely living in two different worlds."

"Oh yeah," Regan replied. "We are in two different worlds."

It was at this point a calm Mfume interjected to put his views on the record.

"We always ought to put a stop sign in front of ourselves when we start assailing by name the personal integrity of any witness," Mfume said. "It continues to happen. I want to make sure I'm on the record so that members on the committee on both sides of the aisle will at least respect the personal integrity of a witness before this committee."

Higgins did note take the criticism lightly, and declared it was his duty to question Regan vigorously because of the position of power he held.

"This is the Oversight committee," Higgins said. "This is where government is forced to sit in front of congress and be held accountable for their actions."

At this point, Mfume compared him to Sen. Joe McCarthy, the notorious Wisconsin Republican whose congressional fear-mongering ushered in the era of the blacklist and the execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

The exchange shocked viewers on social media who applauded both Regan and Mfume for their responses to Higgins' questioning.

"Absolutely right this is not the McCarthy era," replied X user Kim Freestad. "But the Republicans sure seem to reveling in McCarthyism when questioning witnesses.">

<Articles of impeachment have been filed against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the U.S. House just one day after two senators pushed for a federal criminal investigation of Thomas, alleging ethics violations.

Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced on Wednesday that she had introduced articles of impeachment for Thomas and fellow conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, accusing both of failing to disclose gifts and reimbursements and refusing to recuse themselves in cases in which they had conflicts of interest.

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito's pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law, the integrity of our democracy, and one of the clearest cases for which the tool of impeachment was designed," Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement.

"Justice Thomas and Alito's repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law," she added. "Congress has a legal, moral, and democratic obligation to impeach."

Newsweek reached out for comment to a Supreme Court spokesperson via email on Wednesday.

The impeachment resolution against Thomas specifically accuses him of "failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information."

Thomas, 76, the oldest and longest-serving Supreme Court justice, is also accused of "failure to recuse himself" in cases involving the financial or legal interests of his wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas.

Similar allegations are made in the impeachment resolution against Alito, although he is accused of not recusing himself in cases involving his own "personal bias or prejudice concerning a party."

The resolutions were co-sponsored by eight of Ocasio-Cortez's Democratic House colleagues and endorsed by several progressive groups. However, the impeachments are unlikely to move forward in the House soon, as the chamber is controlled by Republicans.

Mike Davis, conservative lawyer who previously promised to usher in a "reign of terror" if appointed attorney general under former President Donald Trump, claimed that the impeachment articles were "frivolous," "desperate" and somehow linked to President Joe Biden in a post to X, formerly Twitter.

"Biden Democrats are desperate," Davis wrote. "@AOC filed frivolous articles of impeachment against Justices Thomas and Alito. The Supreme Court is our last line of defense. Biden Democrats want to destroy it. Then take away our God-given rights. Everything is on the line on November 5th."

On Tuesday, Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Ron Wyden announced that they had sent Attorney General Merrick Garland a letter requesting that he appoint a special counsel to investigate the allegations leveled against Thomas.

The senators argued that the evidence against Thomas "warrants criminal investigation," accusing him of violations that include failing to disclose a number of expensive gifts from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow and never paying taxes on a more than $267,000 forgiven loan from another wealthy business owner.

"Appointment of a Special Counsel would serve the public interest," Whitehouse and Wyden wrote. "The public must have confidence that the judiciary and the Department of Justice execute their responsibilities fairly, impartially, and without respect to political expedience or partisan interests."

Thomas previously defended himself in a statement, arguing that the gifts from Crow were "not reportable," that he had sought out "guidance" before accepting them and that he "always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.">

<Former president Donald Trump often finds himself on the defensive against accusations of racism. He regularly denies the charges, distorting his record and resorting to his “Black friends” defense, while attempting to throw the allegations back at liberals. However, he never explains why he is the favorite son of the one group in society about whose racial bigotry there can be no debate: avowed racists.

Since Trump emerged as a public political figure, they have been resolute in their loyalty to him. Are Trump’s African American allies like Senator Tim Scott or Representative Byron Donalds, or Latino ones like Senator Marco Rubio, truly ignorant of his unapologetically racist champions? Or is their blind ambition to share a ticket with him (or be close to power) simply more important to them?

In 2016, when Donald Trump first ran for president, just about every self-declared white nationalist, white supremacist, Klansman, neo-Nazi, and fascist in the country supported his candidacy. And that’s no exaggeration.

One of the longest-running white nationalist journals in the United States, American Renaissance, is edited by notorious racist Jared Taylor. In January 2016, during the primary race in Iowa, he circulated a robocall that stated, “I urge you to vote for Donald Trump because he is the one candidate who points out that we should accept immigrants who are good for America. We don’t need Muslims. We need smart, well-educated White people who will assimilate to our culture. Vote Trump.”

Trump was also cheered on by the Ku Klux Klan’s official newspaper, The Crusader, which calls itself the “Political Voice of White Christian America.” Though it said that it wasn’t necessarily endorsing Trump, its urge to ally with him was all too clear. Under the front-page headline banner “Make America Great Again,” Pastor Thomas Robb wrote, “While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What made America great in the first place?’ The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did—but because of who our forefathers were.… America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great.”

And then there was the David Duke crisis. On February 24, 2016, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Duke stated to his white radio audience, “Voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage.” When Trump was later asked on CNN about his support from the then-most-famous racist in the nation, his reply was, “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know.” Not exactly an unequivocal denunciation.

And not true in the least. Trump, who claims the best brain and greatest memory on earth, suddenly got amnesia when it came to the way he had spoken out against Duke in 1991 when that figure ran for governor of Louisiana, and, in 2000, when Trump rejected affiliation with the Reform Party in part because of its links to Duke. At the time, he called Duke a “bigot” and a “racist.”

Trump conveniently forgot that past history of his during that CNN interview, as he clearly calculated the nature of his base and where it overlapped with Duke’s. After blaming a faulty earpiece (which, curiously enough, seemed to work fine for the rest of the interview) and evidently fearing swift blowback, Trump rejected Duke’s support the next day.

Duke, however, was undeterred and continued to back him in an enthusiastic fashion. After the election, he even tweeted, “Make no mistake about it, our people played a HUGE role in electing Trump!”

Other racists celebrated as well. At a gathering in Washington, DC, Richard Spencer, leader of the white supremacist alt-right movement, declared: “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!” He was speaking to a crowd of nearly 200, many of whom responded with Nazi salutes. You won’t be surprised to know that they expressed no confusion about what Trump represented.....>

<....In August 2017, within months of being in office, the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, produced a clear opportunity for Trump to denounce racists, Neo-Nazis, and Klansmen who marched to the chants of “White lives matter“ and “Jews will not replace us.” Instead, unlike nearly every other elected official on the national scene, Democrat or Republican, he flubbed his response. After a press conference or two, where he equivocated and went off-script to wax admiringly about “very fine people on both sides,” he ultimately denounced the far-right racists. However, he pointedly agreed with their demand that generated the march in the first place—their objection to the removal of the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from a city park. Trump has decried the dismantling of Lee statues on a number of occasions, including in Charlottesville, where he called it “sad” and “so foolish.”

In 2020, after four years in office, he arguably received even stronger and more violent support from his far-right and white nationalist backers. Those years included his anti-(non-white-)immigrant fight to “build the wall” on the US-Mexican border, his rejection of immigrants from the “@#$%hole countries” of the Global South, the aspersions he cast on Black-dominated cities, and his endless racist statements about Black athletes, elected officials, women, and protesters.

Then, of course, during the 2020 election campaign, far-right extremist groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, the Boogaloo Boys, and others—many with openly racist members in their ranks—rallied around Trump and became his frontline soldiers after he lost. He famously told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by,” but not to stand down. They showed up at most “Stop the Steal” events and were front and center during the January 6 insurrection, where Black police officers reported being called the “n-word.” Trump now refers to that same crew as “warriors” and “patriots,” ignoring the Confederate flags, antisemitic symbols, racial slurs, and nooses that were ubiquitous that day.

In 2020, some in the racist community were smarter in signaling their support for Trump without formally endorsing him. David Duke, however, once again unabashedly came out for him, while suggesting that disgraced media propagandist and ex–Fox News host Tucker Carlson be added to the ticket as his vice-presidential choice. Carlson seemed like a particularly sensible possibility to Duke because, even while at Fox, he had been a proponent of the “white replacement theory,” the argument that undocumented (and even documented) immigrants of color are part of a larger conspiracy by unidentified liberals and Democrats to supplant white Americans and white American culture with something distinctly (and all too literally) darker and more disturbing. Of course, Trump subscribed to that thesis as well.

In 2024, there is little doubt whom the nation’s racists will once again be backing for president. Only recently, Trump spewed lies and misrepresentations at a—yes!—white-dominated gathering in an obscure Black church in Detroit, while denouncing that city as “hell” and “totally corrupt,” and describing black communities as dangerous and depressed. He did not, however, repeat for that crowd and representatives of the national media present that day his pledge to address so-called anti-white racism or to make it a priority should he become president again. As he said in a Time magazine interview, “If you look right now, there’s absolutely a bias against white [people] and that’s a problem.” He offered no examples of that “problem,” but it fit in squarely with the belief of 58 percent of his supporters that “racial minorities” are favored over whites in the United States.

Trump also claims that he is a victim of anti-white racism from “radical vicious, racist prosecutors” in Georgia, New York, and Washington, DC. They are going after him, he insists, simply because he’s a white man and not because he committed any actual crimes.

Trump will undoubtedly continue to claim again and again, all too disingenuously, that “I don’t have a racist bone in my body,” but the folks who unabashedly support him to the hilt certainly think otherwise. The Trump campaign faces the awkward and inconvenient truth that he has never lost the full-scale support of the nation’s most hardcore racists...>