Joe Biden

In a column for MSNBC, GOP political strategist Susan Del Percio suggested that the battle to keep Donald Trump off the ballot in Colorado — and likely other states — should benefit President Joe Biden no matter which way the predominately conservative Supreme Court eventually rules.

With the nation's highest court punting the former president's appeal of the Colorado ruling back to the Court of Appeals before considering it — which is expected no matter which way they rule — Del Perico claimed Trump's ballot problems will do little to bring much-needed new voters into his camp.

Put more simply, she wrote, "it isn’t so much that the Colorado ruling is good for Trump; it just doesn’t hurt him."

With that in mind, she notes that the wavering voters that both Biden and Trump will be courting will never vote for the four-time indicted former president.

"Whatever the Supreme Court rules, the decision will tear this country apart. If Trump is allowed to be on the ballot in Colorado, half of the country will be outraged, and if Trump is barred from being on the ballot, the other half of the country with be irate," she predicted. "Either way, millions of Americans will view this decision as an attack on democracy. Trump voters will remain just as loyal and motivated as before. However, with the issue of democracy front and center, Biden can once again run on protecting the republic."

ALSO READ: Trolling, erotica, vulgarity: Trump, Biden Facebook pages are unmitigated trash heaps

According to Del Percio, a Trump win at the Supreme Court will be a wake-up call to voters that they can't depend on the courts to keep Trump from being elected again and it will be up to them.

"The Biden campaign has been looking for an opportunity to engage and motivate his 2020 voters, and democracy is it," she wrote before adding, "The Supreme Court’s decision will reignite the voters that Biden so desperately needs. So which candidate are these decisions good for? In the long run, it is Biden."

You can read more here.

With lawmakers slated to return to Washington, D.C. after the holidays, there is growing concern among some Republican House members that the Joe Biden impeachment inquiry being led by Reps. James Comer (R-KY) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) has become a "trap" the party can't escape from now that hearings are being scheduled.

According to a report from Politico's Jordain Carney, there are more than a few GOP House members who feel there is nowhere near enough evidence to successfully send the Biden impeachment to the Democratic-controlled Senate for a trial and that Republicans will pay for their lack of success with voters.

With Politico's Carney writing, "A GOP failure to follow suit [impeaching Biden] this time would likely mean severe backlash from the right flank, former President Donald Trump and an increasingly restless base who, some Republicans acknowledge, treat impeachment as a fait accompli," Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) added that far-right members of the party have set expectations too high for conservatives who don't understand how impeachment works.

“I think there’s an expectation in the base now: ‘You voted for impeachment.’ … They look at this as an impeachment vote,” he explained.

"Leadership has a short window to find an off-ramp that would please both the impeachment skeptics and supporters within their own ranks," Carney wrote. "Investigators want to decide as early as late January on drafting impeachment articles, but whether the conference has the votes to recommend booting the president will likely factor into leaders’ decision to go further down that path."

With the report noting there is no hard evidence that can be used against Biden, some Republicans are already attempting to temper expectations.

ALSO READ: Let fear be your greatest motivator in 2024

According to Rep. David Joyce (R-OH), "There’s not evidence to impeach” before cautioning, "We’re a long way from impeachment."

You can read more here.

Donald Trump's Friday afternoon claim that he scored a major victory at the Supreme Court when it denied special counsel Jack Smith's request to step in and rule on the former president's assertion of presidential immunity was larded with false claims and bravado that was in no way warranted.

That is the opinion of former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance who rained on Trump's parade with a fact check about what really occurred.

Following the ruling that the court is not yet ready to hear the opposing arguments until a lower court makes a ruling, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to boast, "The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Deranged Jack Smith’s desperate attempt to short circuit our Great Constitution. Crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring this sham case, and now they have tried and failed to rush this Witch Hunt through the courts."

He then added, "Of course I am entitled to Presidential Immunity. I was President, it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential Election. Looking forward to the very important arguments on Presidential Immunity in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Make America Great Again!"

According to Vance, Trump's statement was full of egregious errors.

On her Civil Discourse Substack platform, she explained that the court in no way "unanimously rejected" a desperation move, with the former prosecutor writing that Smith, " ... asked for an established writ that has been used in other cases of similar magnitude to send an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Nor has the Court unanimously rejected the underlying issue, Judge Chutkan’s denial of Trump presidential immunity motion. That substantive issue is still to be decided."

Vance then took aim at Trump's assertion that the case sat for three years, writing, "to the contrary, from what we know, while there may have been some initial reluctance to investigate, by at least 2022, investigation was underway and the case, a very complicated one with lots of moving parts, was indicted on August 1, 2023. In other words, less than three years out from January 6, 2021."

On a final point, she flattened the former president for declaring "it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential election."

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

Absolutely wrong, she wrote.

"Elections are run by states. They certify their results on the basis of the results in each county. So, Trump had no right to get involved in the vote count in Wayne County, Michigan, but we now know that he tried to cajole Republican vote canvassers there into refusing to certify the lawful vote," she explained before adding, "If Trump suspected fraud he could report that to DOJ, which he of course did, and they told him in no uncertain terms they couldn’t find any evidence of it. So no, the election wasn’t rigged or stolen. And Trump had neither right nor duty to investigate. It’s just more red meat he throws at his base, hoping they won’t notice that it’s spoiled."

You can read more here.