Trump’s State of the Union Address: Some Good Points, but his Lies should Worry all Americans

In Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address on Tuesday evening, he was preaching to the choir. His MAGA base loved it. Republican leaders who were present got plenty of exercise as they stood up and applauded dozens of times during his 99 minute speech. He was disciplined in sticking to his text instead of his more typical going off script. He highlighted his “successes” and generally omitted his failed promises. Nevertheless, he made many claims that were totally false. I lay out some of the evidence below. I ask my readers, especially MAGA folk, to pursue the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the following information is inaccurate in any detail, please let me know. If Trump communicated false information, please speak truth to power.

Trump – “The presidential election of November 5th was a mandate like has not been seen in many decades…. We won the popular vote by big numbers.”

The Truth – Trump truly won the election, but it was not a mandate. He did not even receive a majority of the popular vote, just 49.8% of those who voted. In fact, it was the smallest margin of victory since the year 2000.

Trump – “Now, for the first time in modern history, more Americans believe that our country is headed in the right direction than the wrong direction — in fact it’s an astonishing record, 27-point swing — the most ever.”

The Truth – “Thirty-four percent of Americans say that the country is headed in the right direction, compared to 49% who say it is off on the wrong track. When it comes to several specific issues, Americans are more likely to say things are off on the wrong track than going in the right direction: cost of living (22% right direction / 60% wrong track), the national economy (31% right direction / 51% wrong track), national politics (33% right direction / 50% wrong track), American foreign policy (33% right direction / 49% wrong track), and employment and jobs (33% right direction / 47% wrong track). Immigration policy is the only specific issue where more Americans say it is going in the right direction (48%) than off on the wrong track (39%).” (most recent Reuters/IPSOS poll)

Trump – “It has been stated by many that the first month of our presidency, it’s our presidency, is the most successful in the history of our nation. By many. And what makes it even more impressive, is that you know who number two is? George Washington. How about that? I don’t know about that list but we’ll take it.”

The Truth – We should be cautious when politicians (or anyone else) refuse to identify their sources. Who are the “many”? Where is the list? Was Trump really ahead of George Washington? According to the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls, only 46.1% of the U.S. citizens currently approve of the job Trump is doing, a decline of over 3% in these first six weeks of his presidency. (Donald Trump : Favorability Polls | FiveThirtyEight

Trump – “The United States has spent perhaps $350 billion on supporting Ukraine’s defense.” He also claimed that Europe has only spent $100 billion in aid to Ukraine.

The Truth – “According to the special inspector general responsible for overseeing the spending related to the war in Ukraine, Congress has appropriated or otherwise made available $182.75 billion for the overall U.S. response to the war since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Of that money, about $119 billion has been for the direct benefit of Ukraine, including approximately $65.9 billion in military assistance…. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, European countries have spent around $140 billion to back Kyiv, and pledged another roughly $120 billion to the cause.” (Shannon Kingston in Fact-checking Trump’s speech to Congress)

Trump – “Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control. The egg prices are out of control. And we are working hard to get it back down.”

The Truth – Egg prices rose under Biden. They have continued to rise sharply during Trump’s first six weeks. This is the same Trump who campaigned with the promise “I will bring down egg prices on Day One.” When I was a kid, we would hear the slogan “Boys make excuses, men make good.” I hear a lot of excuses coming out of the White House. Excuses need to be quite solid in order to justify failed promises.

Trump – “the next phase of our plan to deliver the greatest economy in history is for this Congress to pass tax cuts for everybody.”

The Truth – During his first administration, Trump amassed the largest federal debt in U.S. history, $7.8 trillion. This does not lead to “the greatest economy in history”. This debt was largely due to his tax cut that primarily benefited the very rich. It was not a tax cut “for everybody”.

Trump – Although barely mentioned in his election campaign, tariffs have played a large role in these six weeks of his presidency. He called tariffs a “beautiful word”, his “favorite word”. On Tuesday Trump proclaimed that due to tariffs, “we will take in trillions and trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

The Truth – “The substantial tariffs that Mr. Trump is imposing on foreign products will raise revenue for the government. But total U.S. imports last year were about $3.3 trillion, meaning that tariffs would have to be incredibly high to generate the trillions of dollars of revenue that Mr. Trump claims.” (Fact-Checking Trump’s Address to Congress – The New York Times)

Trump – The specific special tariffs on Mexico and Canada (of 25%) were included in the written script of his address, but Trump (conveniently) skipped over these items in his oral remarks. Why?

The Truth – The conservative Wall Street Journal described these massive tariffs as the “Dumbest Trade War in History”. These tariffs took effect on Tuesday. In two days, the Dow Jones level fell some 1200 points (about 3% of its total value)! Mexico and Canada announced reciprocal, retaliatory tariffs. GOP leaders and the Big Three Automobile producers voiced their concerns to the White House. Faced with this bad news, Trump caved. On Wednesday he announced a one month “pause” on automobile tariffs with our two neighbors.

I could go on and on, but these lies are enough for now. The next big event is the budget that needs to be approved by Congress and signed into law by Trump. He says he wants a “balanced budget”. He has also promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is impossible. Republicans plan on cutting $880 billion from Medicaid which would lead to the closing of hundreds of nursing homes across the country and additional pain for millions of our citizens. Readers, what should we do with all these lies?

Serious Questions Regarding Trump’s Nominee Pete Hegseth

Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. His victory was decisive even though it was not the landslide that he has claimed. (In fact, his margin of victory was lower than every presidential election since 2000.) As President-elect, he has the legal right to nominate qualified candidates for his Cabinet and other top posts in his administration. The Senate has the responsibility to meet with the candidates and then to “advise and consent”, in effect, to approve or reject each one. The process involves a hearing with the appropriate Senate committee which explores whether the person is qualified (in terms of experience, integrity, judgment) for the position. This is followed by a vote of that committee. If favorable, the nomination is forwarded for a vote by the entire Senate. Many of his nominees are having their committee hearings this week.

Some of Trump’s nominees will sail through this process. For example, Senator Marco Rubio has been nominated to become the next Secretary of State. Although I disagree with some of Rubio’s policies, he is very qualified for the position and will receive bipartisan support. He will probably have more problems with Trump himself (regarding Russia’s war with Ukraine and personality issues) than with Democrats.

A more controversial nominee is Pete Hegseth. Trump named him to become the next Defense Secretary and to supervise the extensive Department of Defense (DOD). This is the largest department of the federal government with some three million employees and an $849 billion budget. His hearing before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee took place on January 14 and was seen live by millions of citizens.

I have some serious questions regarding Hegseth. There are at least three procedural anomalies:

Previous presidents have fully vetted their nominees with the FBI. This has been done to reveal any “skeletons in the closet”. Trump chose to bypass this procedure regarding Hegseth and most of his other nominees. Why?
Most hearings permit two or three rounds of questions by its members. During the Hegseth hearing, only one round was permitted. Why?
In the past, before they have their hearing, nominees have met individually with senators of the appropriate committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to answer specific questions the senators might have. Hegseth chose not to meet with Democrat senators. Why?

In addition, the following are areas that warrant honest, thorough evaluation of Hegseth’s qualifications.

Lack of experience in administering organizations

The DOD has three million employees. Hegseth has never administered an organization with more than a few dozen paid employees. Does he have the management experience to lead the largest department in our federal government? This is not an ideological debate between conservatives and liberals. This is a technical question regarding administrative experience and preparedness.

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

In 2017, Hegseth was accused of sexual assault. Although he denied it and affirmed that their sexual encounter was consensual, he paid the woman a confidential settlement. She is willing to meet with the Senate committee to confirm her allegation. She should be released from the confidentiality aspect of this settlement so that the truth sees the light of day.

Even his own mother, Penelope Hegseth, accused him of mistreatment of women. She wrote him in an email, “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

In the hearing, he was repeatedly asked whether specific allegations of sexual assault (and drunkenness on the job) were true or false. He repeatedly refused to answer these questions with a simple “yes” or “no”. He claimed that these were “anonymous allegations that were part of a smear campaign”. Many of these allegations were not anonymous. Hegseth should have answered. His refusal to respond suggests that he was guilty.

Inconsistencies Regarding Women in the Military

In the recent past, Hegseth has frequently affirmed that women should “straight up” not serve in combat. In his hearing, he tried to modify these affirmations without disavowing them completely. He hid behind new affirmations of the military’s lowering of standards in order to meet quotas for women in the military. Women on the committee who have served in the military (including Senator Tammy Duckworth who defeated me in a congressional race back in 2006) refuted his affirmations about the lowering of standards.

There are many additional areas that need honest evaluation. May the nominee provide us with honest responses.

Robert F. Kennedy: Criticisms from at least Three Constituencies

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the people he wants to fill out his Cabinet. This is appropriate because he won the presidential election in November. (His claim of a landslide victory is false. He won 49.81% of the popular vote compared with 48.33% for Kamala Harris, the smallest margin of victory since 2000.) According to our Constitution, the President nominates candidates, and the Senate examines them and then approves or rejects each one, based upon their background, expertise, policies they would pursue, and their moral character. Some of his nominees are well qualified and should sail through the Senate. Nevertheless, other nominees are quite controversial and will probably not get confirmed. Most have not been properly vetted. Some, like Matt Gaetz, will withdraw their nomination or suffer the embarrassment of being rejected by the Republican controlled Senate. One of the most troubling is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who himself was a candidate for president, then threw his support to Trump. As compensation for his “loyalty”, Trump named him to become the Secretary of the powerful, sprawling Health and Human Services Department (HHS). He told RFK to “go wild” on health. Perhaps he is too “wild”. He has received sharp criticisms from at least these three constituencies.

The Medical Community – If he is confirmed, Kennedy would oversee 13 federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RFK is so controversial because he has made many affirmations that are contrary to scientific evidence. For example, he is known as an “anti-vaxxer”, who urges people not to get vaccinated. He has claimed (without proof) that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine causes autism. He has just petitioned the FDA, through his lawyer, to revoke approval of the polio vaccine. The Salk polio vaccine has protected an estimated twenty million people from getting this dreaded disease. This past Monday, 77 Nobel laureates, from the fields of medicine, chemistry, physics, and economics wrote an open letter to the Senate, urging its members to reject the RFK nomination. The letter states that “placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of HHS would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in health science”.

The Pro-Lifers – Some pro-lifers are realizing that Trump’s support of pro-life issues was largely transactional. He manipulated them and he is not a true believer in their cause. An early indication was the platform of the Republican party. Trump promoted a change in the abortion plank which watered down its wording which had endured for decades. Now, the President-elect has nominated Kennedy to head up HHS. RFK has been pro-choice on abortion, yet he tried to walk that back when he was courting Republican voters. Significant pro-lifers are raising their voice against RFK. For example, former Vice-President Mike Pence wrote, “I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of pro-life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades.” He added, “On behalf of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, I respectfully urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination and give the American people a leader who will respect the sanctity of life as Secretary of Health and Human Services”. (Here I am not weighing in on the morality of abortion; I am just reporting that Pence sees the RFK nomination as a betrayal of the pro-life movement.)

Corn Farmers – RFK has been quite outspoken regarding the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup. He denounces that our high consumption of this corn syrup in many food products has been the major factor in childhood obesity and other illnesses. (The medical community largely agrees with RFK on this issue.) In one of his promo videos, he affirmed that high-fructose corn syrup “is just a formula for making you obese and diabetic”. The political controversy swirls around what he might do about corn syrup and how this might negatively affect the jobs of farmers. As Secretary of HHS, he could urge the elimination of farm subsidies for corn production. This would be devastating for rural farmers (rural folk are some of Trump’s most solid supporters). Senators from corn producing states have raised the alarm. Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, said, “I may have to spend a lot of time educating Kennedy about agriculture”.

U.S. Senators, you are responsible for seriously evaluating the experiential and moral fitness of each nominee and their mental judgment. Next week, Kennedy will be meeting with many of you. Please, do your job of serving the citizens by being rigorous in your evaluation of RFK.

When Politics Becomes a Cult

When we think of a cult, we usually focus on a relatively small group of people who are under the “spell” of a manipulative religious leader. Nevertheless, there are moments when political movements and politicians demonstrate cult like tendencies. Hitler had a powerful spell over much of the German population. Dictators frequently have such power over many of their citizens. I recently did a google search for characteristics of cultic leaders which revealed the following traits with brief descriptions in parentheses. I urge you to study these characteristics and evaluate if any current leader comes to mind. If you are under the influence of such a leader, have the courage to break free.

Grandiose idea of who he is (exaggerated self-importance)
Excessive admiration demands (narcissistic cravings)
Exaggerated power sense (rule-breaking confidence)
Boastful about accomplishments (showy self-promotion)
Unlimited success fantasies (delusional aspirations)
Exploiting others financially (financial manipulation)
Hypersensitivity to perception (concerned with image)
Center of attention craving (distracting behavior)
Blind, unquestioned obedience (demanding loyalty)
Arrogant behavior (haughty attitude)
Ignoring others’ needs (selfish disregard)
Best of everything expectation (material superiority)

Last Night’s Debate: Vance Won on Style, Lost on Truth

Last night’s debate between the vice-presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz was generally respectful, almost downright friendly. Vance came across as polished and spoke a lot of content. He partly improved his unfavorable reputation on the campaign trail where, in addition to many other absurd comments, he has falsely accused Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio of eating cats and dogs. Nevertheless, he lost the debate on credibility because he told numerous lies and refused to answer several tough questions. Here are some of the most important:

When he was asked about what the Trump/Vance administration would do about Obamacare (ACA- Affordable Care Act), Vance falsely affirmed that during his presidency Trump had “saved” Obamacare from crashing under its own weight. That is a lie. Trump tried to kill the ACA, but Senator John McCain blocked Trump in the Senate. In fact, Obamacare has increased in popularity over the years and more citizens are covered by Obamacare than ever before.
Given the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene, Vance was asked whether global warming/climate change was a “hoax” as Trump has frequently claimed. Vance would not answer the question directly, although he said climate change was “weird science”. He brazenly lied about the United States being one of the cleanest economies in the world. In fact, the U.S.A. is the third dirtiest economy, after China and India.
Vance continued Trump’s claims that immigrants were the major cause for our increasing crime rates. This is a lie on two counts. First, major crime (murder, robbery, violence) rates have gone down over the last two years. Secondly, study after study have repeatedly shown that immigrants in the United States have lower crime rates that nationals. Scapegoating immigrants without credible evidence to back it up has been a shameful practice in our history… and continues to our times.
Vance argued that our economy during Trump’s presidency was the best in the world. He conveniently omitted that Trump increased our national debt by more than any previous four-year administration. When pressed on the issue, Vance refused to answer the question.
The most important moment in the debate occurred near the end. Walz asked Vance if he acknowledges that, in fact, Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance refused to answer the question. He responded, “I want to concentrate on the future.”

Both candidates (and all humans, for that matter) have their flaws. Both have told lies, big and small. But lies seem to roll off the lips of Vance quite easily. Truth still matters and can still set us free.

What to Watch for in the Great Debate: Trump and Harris on the Economy

The great debate takes place tonight. What should we look for? Among the many important issues, I suggest we pay close attention to the economy.

Trump, of course, has a record to run on. How successful was our economy during his four-year administration as president (2017-2021)? Although he claims it was the “greatest the world has ever seen”, the facts tell a different story. During his presidency, the national debt increased by $7.8 trillion dollars (U.S. Treasury Department). This was the largest debt increase in a four-year presidential term in our country’s history! (Caveat: The debt rose $9.1 trillion under Obama, but that occurred over his eight years as president, in contrast with Trump’s four years.) Trump’s large deficit was mostly due to his huge tax cuts for the benefit of the wealthy citizens in our midst. He claimed that tax revenue would show an amazing growth due to a boom in the economy. Of course, he was wrong. The debt increase was similar to indulgent parents who buy their children expensive gifts…and buy them with a credit card. Sooner or later, someone has to pay. In this case, it is the U.S. taxpayer.

If this truth is acknowledged, it is difficult to understand why sane voters would trust Trump on the economy. Let’s look at tariffs. Trump has promised, “We will become a tariff nation”. Tariffs are usually applied on products from foreign nations in order to financially punish those countries, by raising prices and, therefore, reducing sales of those products. Trump has claimed that these tariffs will not increase inflation for U.S. consumers. This is illogical! If retail companies in the United States import products that have higher prices due to tariffs, they will pass on that increase to consumers. Even the editorial board of the conservative Wall Street Journal acknowledges this truth: Higher tariffs, by definition, lead to higher inflation.

Where does Vice-President Harris stand on the economy? Usually sitting vice-presidents are not held accountable for the successes and/or failures of the president. A question arises. Tonight will she “own” the Biden-Harris economy? On the one hand, coming out of the Covid pandemic, the U.S. economy is the “envy” of all the major capitalist nations when evaluated on criteria of jobs, inflation, GDP, etc. On the other hand, many middle-class people don’t “feel” good about their family finances. Housing costs are up. Gasoline prices are up. Grocery prices are up around 22% over the last couple of years. Harris needs to enact policies that will offer relief for the middle class. She has promised that first-time home buyers will be able to obtain up to a $25,000 tax credit for that purchase. This is a very popular policy, especially with undecided younger voters. But how will she pay for this policy? Will she, like Trump, increase the national debt? She says that she will pay for her policies, by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Most middle-class people won’t pay even a penny more in income taxes. I would like to see some clear figures tonight to back up her promises.

In a previous presidential race, the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” became popular. Economic issues determine elections. Who do I trust with our economy? It is not Trump.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 4) The facts don’t support his claims about the 2020 election being stolen

For the last four years, former president Trump has repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen. He claimed that he actually won the election, but irregularities in key battleground states cheated him out of his victory. In addition, he has required that Republicans who want his endorsement in state elections must agree with him, that is, they must also become “election deniers”. The official results revealed that Biden won the electoral college 306 to Trump’s 232 electors. Biden won the crucial battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.

Fact #1 – As was his legal right, Trump appealed the election results in courts across the country. Frequently, these courts were headed up by judges that Trump himself had appointed. Trump lost every appeal!

Fact #2 – When he was president, Trump picked William Barr to be his Attorney General. Throughout his presidency Barr consistently favored Trump in every legal decision. Nevertheless, Barr did not agree with Trump about the 2020 election results. After investigating the results in the key states, Barr concluded, “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Fact #3 – The most important example comes from the state of Georgia. Although usually a Republican state, elections have been more competitive in the last decade. The Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the official in charge of overseeing the election, (and a conservative Republican with an impeccable reputation) announced that Biden won the election in Georgia. Republicans demanded a recount. Raffensperger implemented a hand recount/audit of the 5 million votes that were cast, and the recount confirmed that Biden had won. On January 2, 2021, Trump telephoned Raffensperger and pressured him to overturn the election. Trump begged, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” Not only did Raffensperger refused to become complicit in Trump’s crime, he had taped the phone call as evidence. The transcript of the phone call as well as the tape itself are available online for everyone to see and hear.

The 2020 election was not stolen by the Democrats. Trump’s phone call demonstrates that, in fact, Trump tried to steal the election, but was caught red-handed.

Dear MAGA readers, if you value the truth, do not spread Trump’s lie about a stolen election. Have the courage and integrity to face the facts. Trump lost.

Trump is Unbelievable! The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the border and the budget

Biden and Trump both have records to run on… or to hide from. God has given each of us a brain and a conscience to evaluate their actions as a former or current president. I will analyze Biden’s record in upcoming posts, but in my writings today and tomorrow, I will address Trump’s promises and practice in two areas: the Border and the Budget.

The Border

Ever since his escalator descent when he began his first presidential campaign in 2015, the southern border has been one of Trump’s principal issues. A major thrust of his solution to the “immigration crisis” was his promise to build a wall along the two-thousand-mile border between Mexico and the United States. In fact, the phrase “Build the wall… Build the wall” became the standard chant at MAGA rallies. Last night, Trump promised that he would complete the wall, although he had already “finished most of it”.

Fact # 1 – During his previous four-year presidential administration, Trump built a whopping 52 miles of new wall (according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection report). He had the full authority of the White House and a Republican controlled Congress, yet he only constructed fifty-two miles of new wall. We should evaluate people, and especially presidential candidates, by their “fruits”, that is, by their actions (or in this case, inaction). Given this fact, it is incredible that anyone would believe Trump’s words about the border.

Fact # 2 – Earlier this year, the conservative Republican Senator James Lankford was the main author of a tough immigration bill in the Senate. It included everything that Republicans wanted in immigration legislation. Republicans were in favor of the bill… until they weren’t. What happened? Trump urged Republican officials to vote against the legislation. Trump did not want to solve the “immigration crisis”; he wanted the crisis to continue as a political issue for his campaign. This was pure hypocrisy.

In my post tomorrow, I will analyze Trump’s promises about the budget and the national debt. Meanwhile, seek the truth, follow the truth, live the truth. Do not believe lies, whoever they come from.

Which J. D. Vance should we Believe? The Author of Hillbilly Elegy or the Republican Vice-President Nominee?

Several years ago, I belonged to a reading club. Our group read J. D. Vance’s famous little book Hillbilly Elegy which came out in 2016. It was an excellent book! Vance compelling told his family’s story against the backdrop of people from Kentucky (my dad’s home state) who, for economic reasons, migrated to Ohio (where I was born and raised). His book was intensely personal and factually accurate.

At that time, he also made several sharp criticisms of Donald Trump who was running for president. Given Trump’s comments about immigrants who came from “sh.thole” countries, Vance correctly denounced Trump as a racist. Given Trump’s daily and dangerous lies, Vance said he was “unfit” for office. Vance affirmed, “I am a never-Trump guy” and “I never liked him”.

Somewhere along the way, Vance had a “political conversion”. He retracted all of his criticisms of Trump. Without a shred of credible evidence, he seconded Trump’s claim of a stolen 2020 election. (Remember, Trump appealed to dozens of courts, as was his right, but lost every appeal, even with judges that he had appointed). Vance has changed his positions to match Trump’s on all major issues (the border, Ukraine, abortion, etc.). For Vance’s newly discovered support of Trump, Donald supported him in the 2022 Senate race in Ohio which Vance won. Vance is now Trump’s VP nominee.

I believe that people can, and should, change their minds and their positions when the factual evidence compels them to do so. That is why I write these posts on my blog. Nevertheless, our changes should always be towards greater truth, not towards greater falsehoods. I fear Vance’s changes have been made due to his political ambitions.

So, who should we believe? The younger Vance who wrote and spoke with integrity and with a concern for truthfulness, or the more recent nominee who peddles “stolen elections” due to his personal and political ambition? I prefer the earlier, more honest version.

The Supreme Court and Total Audacity

The Supreme Court and Total Immunity

When Donald Trump made his claim for the total immunity of presidents, I thought it was an outrageous attempt by a guilty, out-of-touch liar making a last-ditch effort to avoid serious criminal convictions in the courts of Georgia, D.C., and Florida. I still believe that. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling last Monday was even more outrageous. It essentially declared that all U.S. presidents are above the law, transforming the presidency into a monarchy.

SCOTUS tried to make a distinction between official, governmental acts (for which the president would be immune) and private, personal actions (for which the president could be criminally liable). At a superficial level, this sounds reasonable, but it is fraught with problems. Almost any action, if it involves any part of the governmental apparatus, can be declared official and, therefore, provide grounds for immunity.

Weaponizing the Federal Government – In the last decade, both Republicans and Democrats have accused the other side of utilizing the instruments of the government (The Department of Justice, the IRS, etc.) to take down political opponents. The prosecution of Hunter Biden and the current charges against Trump are examples of this alleged weaponization. Nevertheless, under the new SCOTUS ruling, if a sitting president gave the order to the DOJ, that act could be an official governmental action and, therefore, the president would be immune.

Trump – Applying the SCOTUS ruling to the cases against Trump, he would probably be declared immune from the charges leveled against him for his actions/inactions regarding the insurrection of January 6, 2021. He could be declared immune from charges for the mishandling of secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. He would probably be immune from the charge of overturning the election results (eg. phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger) and so on.

Historical Precedent – This SCOTUS ruling goes against all examples in our U.S. history. The founders of our country and the signers of our Constitution had just fought a long war to break free from the “total immunity” of a king. They gave no hint that a president would be “above the law”. They knew that power can lead to corruption and that absolute power “corrupts absolutely”, and therefore they put restrictions and limits on the presidency. Former president Nixon would be provided immunity for his Watergate crime under this ruling.

Crazy Audacity – Trump made another crazy claim. He stated that he made his appeal to the Supreme Court not merely for his own protection, but also to protect Obama and Biden from criminal prosecution. It is tragic when people believe such self-serving lies. No president is above the law. Not Obama. Not Biden. Not Trump.