Will Democrats replace Joe Biden as their presidential nominee?

It’s not that simple, logistically or politically, as long he’s still alive. States have pretty strict rules on last-second ballot changes, but Democrats have always found ways to get courts to rewrite laws for them at the last second. Just look at what they did for Frank Lautenberg and Robert Torricelli in New Jersey. It would be a heavy lift but not an impossible one.

The real problem for Democrats is political: Removing Biden as nominee requires them to deny and reject the election results of their voters in all 50 states after they spent four years accusing everyone else of being “election deniers.” They also will have a very hard time removing Biden as nominee but leaving him in as president. If he’s not mentally fit to be on the campaign trail or debate stage, how on Earth can he be fit enough to remain as president? The downsides of that strategy are immense, with little upside.

And that brings us to the real problem for Democrats: Kamala Harris. They know she’s political kryptonite because she’s both incredibly stupid and extremely unlikeable. Democrat voters can’t even stand her. So if they manage to get rid of Biden both as nominee and as president, they end up stuck with her, which might even be worse than doing nothing. Do they really want to be in the position of preventing the first female president from running as an incumbent?

In ruling against the Department of Justice’s weaponization of the law to target political opponents, the Supreme Court just shot down two of special counsel Jack Smith’s four charges against former President Donald Trump — but the fight isn’t over.

The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision Friday in Fischer v. United States that found the DOJ inappropriately used federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c) to prosecute individuals involved in the Jan. 6 riot. The statute carries a 20-year prison sentence for anyone who “corruptly”:

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.

The statute has been, as my colleague Tristan Justice explained, “the basis for keeping many protesters in jail without bond for months or even years before they reached trial.”

“It’s never before been used in the way the DOJ has applied it to Jan. 6 protesters,” Justice continued.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, warned that the DOJ’s broad interpretation of the statute to charge more than 300 defendants with felonies “would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.”

And while the Supreme Court’s ruling would surely mean that two of the charges against Trump are illegal, President Joe Biden’s DOJ has

Justice Amy Coney Barrett painted Big Tech’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop stories four years ago as a safeguard against foreign interference in an official Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday.

In what could have been a landmark censorship case, Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion in Murthy v. Missouri, characterized tech giants’ reactionary censorship of the laptop story as a good-faith effort to minimize Russian meddling in the 2020 election.

After summarizing social media companies’ content moderation programs throughout the coronavirus epidemic, Barrett wrote “platforms also applied their misinformation policies during the 2020 Presidential election season.”

“Facebook, in late 2019, unveiled measures to counter foreign interference campaigns and voter suppression efforts,” she wrote. “One month before the election, multiple platforms suppressed a report about Hunter Biden’s laptop, believing that the story originated from a Russian hack-and-leak operation.”

Except the only people who believed this were gullible Democrats who fell for an intelligence hoax peddled by the deep state to protect then-candidate Joe Biden.

On Tuesday, the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government revealed several of the 51 former intelligence officials who sought to discredit the laptop as Kremlin interference in Politico were actively on payroll with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The infamous letter published near immediately after the first stories from the laptop surfaced in the New York Post, claimed the computer had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The statement was made despite the director of national intelligence at the