Tuesday, July 2, 2024

If Donald Trump gets back in the White House, we will have a convicted felon as our chief law-enforcement officer; let's all say "thank you" to John Roberts!

Donald Trump and John Roberts: Comrades (Getty)

Yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling in Donald  Trump's immunity case did more than give Trump a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. It also lit a stick of dynamite under one of our nation's most important law-and-order concepts. In short, Chief Justice John Roberts and his corrupt right-wing colleagues obliterated the notion of an independent Department of Justice (DOJ), one that operates separately from the presidency on charging decisions. 

As we have reported for 17 years here at our Legal Schnauzer blog, our justice system has many flaws -- No. 1 being corruption, tied to judges, lawyers, clerks, cops, the whole shebang. (We will have much more in upcoming posts on the problem of judicial corruption, which we now know plagues our nation's highest court.) One thing our country got right from the early days of the republic is to have the DOJ conduct one of its primary missions -- whether to charge or not charge individuals for alleged criminal conduct -- outside of influence from the White House. This set-up has served our nation well, but it is no more, thanks to the rogues and criminals on John Roberts' court.

How did that happen? The New Republic (TNR) supplies the answers, with associate writer Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling, who specializes in breaking news, writing under the headline "Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Destroys Independent Justice Department; Chief Justice John used Donald Trump’s immunity ruling to casually wreck the concept of an independent Department of Justice:

The Justice Department will no longer be an independent authority on the law, thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Donald Trump’s immunity case Monday. Instead, it will be an arm to be leveraged by the Oval Office, with open communication enabled between the federal law -enforcement agency and the presidency for all future investigations.

Chief Justice John Roberts slipped the allowance into his majority opinion, as the justices ruled 6–3 in Trump’s favor along ideological lines. In a quiet sentence, Roberts argued that the fresh take on the executive branch relationship would help the president carry out his constitutional duties.

“The president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’” Roberts wrote.

“And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President’s ‘chief law enforcement officer’ who ‘provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,’” Roberts continued, citing a precedent from an immunity case argued for Cabinet members, Mitchell v. Forsyth.

This means that if Trump returns to office, he will have free rein to wield the Justice Department as he sees fit—and he and his allies have already given plenty of indications as to what they plan to do.

Roberts, as should be well understood by now, is full of horse manure. His ruling will put out a welcome mat for all kinds of corruption. Have any previous or possible presidents, before Donald Trump came along, needed to tinker with the DOJ's internal operations to ensure laws are faithfully executed"? I'm not aware of one.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution, indeed, includes an Executive Vesting Clause that requires the president to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed." But it suggests this usually happens through the president's authority to appoint the agents charged with the duty of such enforcement. It does not say the president is to directly engage in the DOJ's charging and non-charging decisions.

But that appears to be exactly the kind of system Roberts has installed, essentially making the president the nation's "chief law-enforcement officer." This is the perfect system for a grifter like Trump, who we already know is incompetent and deceitful, to usher in an era of unparalleled corruption if he is re-elected.

Speaking of Trump, what will we have if he winds up back in the White House? We will have a convicted felon as chief law-enforcement officer, which should make us the laughingstock of the world. And we can thank John Roberts' skulduggery for that. Houghtsling writes:

The decision from the conservative majority overturned a federal appeals court ruling that had unanimously rejected all three of Trump’s presidential immunity arguments in his January 6 case, “patiently, painstakingly, and unsparingly” dismantling his arguments in an “airtight” opinion, according to George Conway, a conservative attorney and ex-husband of former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.

Monday’s ruling has effectively killed the January 6 trial, which would have been overseen by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

 


 

 


Monday, July 1, 2024

AOC and lawyer tristan Snell lead the early effort to hold SCOTUS accountable for lawless ruling granting Donald Trump immunity for official acts

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Getty)

Many Americans probably are trying to wrap their heads around this morning's stunning U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling, granting Donald Trump immunity for his official acts while president. What happened today? This is from a report at CNN: 

The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision Monday granting Donald Trump partial immunity from special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case, handing the former president a significant win during his reelection bid.

Though the 6-3 ruling technically allows Smith to inch the prosecution toward resolution, the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts left many technical questions unresolved – making it increasingly unlikely that a trial can get under way before the November election. 

“The president is not above the law,” Roberts wrote for the conservative majority. “But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution.”

Here are five quick takeaways from the ruling.

(1) As we have reported previously, there is no support for presidential immunity in U.S. law. In fact, there is nothing in our law to support SCOTUS' decision to even hear the Trump case.

(2) That means the nation's highest court acted unlawfully to reach today's ruling.

(3) That raises the specter of possible criminal activity within the ranks at SCOTUS, especially among the six conservative justices who joined in the 6-3 majority. That suggests it is time to treat the justices like common criminals, because a growing body of evidence indicates that shoe fits. Does that mean they could eventually be led out of their plush surroundings in handcuffs? I see reason to believe that could happen, assuming someone in authority has the guts to pursue such a case.

(4) While MAGAs celebrate the ruling as a victory for Trump, they might have forgotten their guy is not president at the moment. That title belongs to Joe Biden, and he could be able to use his new-found immunity in interesting ways -- some of which might not be too pleasant for Trump or members of the U.S. Supreme Court. At least one prominent attorney already is thinking along those lines. Tristan Snell --  founder of MainStreet Law in New York City, commentator at CNN and MSNBC, and author of Taking Down Trump -- writes today at Twitter:

Biden's next act with his new presidential immunity:

Create 4 new seats on the Supreme Court, by executive order.

He can add a biding ethics code as well.

And a special counsel to investigate corruption on SCOTUS while he's at it. 

(5) U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also is thinking about repercussions. She is plnning to prepare articles of impeachment regarding corruption on SCOTUS, as reflected in today's ruling. From a report at The New Republic (TNR)

In response to the Supreme Court’s disastrous 6–3 decision on Monday granting Trump expansive immunity from criminal prosecution, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued a stern condemnation of the court’s “corruption crisis beyond its control” and vowed to issue articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court once Congress reconvenes after Labor Day.

“Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in response to the Supreme Court deciding on Monday that presidents are above the law. “It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.” Ocasio-Cortez’s bold declaration prompted a since-deleted response from Representative Veronica Escobar saying, “Count me in,” suggesting there may soon be more lawmakers behind the effort.

Prior to Monday’s ruling in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court significantly expanded its judicial power and overturned the Chevron doctrine—and then further obliterated modern administrative law in yet another case. The Supreme Court also dismantled a law used to convict hundreds of Capitol rioters on the basis that the relevant subsection of the law comes after an irrelevant subsection, a barely cogent legal argument that conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett described as “textual backflips.”

According to the Constitution, Supreme Court justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” meaning justices remain on the Supreme Court until they either step down, die, or are removed by impeachment. Impeaching a Supreme Court justice requires a simple majority vote in the House followed by a conviction in the Senate with a two-thirds majority vote—meaning the success of AOC’s prospective efforts to impeach any Supreme Court justice relies in part on Democrats winning control of the House and substantially increasing their majority in the Senate, as well as ginning up enough support to pursue impeachment in the first place.

The only Supreme Court justice ever to be impeached was Samuel Chase in 1804. The House successfully passed articles of impeachment against Chase on charges that he used his position to promote his political agenda, which at the time the House’s impeachment articles described as “tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan.” Despite the House’s successful impeachment vote, the Senate later acquitted Chase.

It’s unclear whether the articles of impeachment Ocasio-Cortez intends to file would be levied against all six conservative justices behind the majority opinion in the immunity ruling, or whether the effort would focus on specific justices, such as Clarence Thomas and his chronic failure to disclose gifts from conservative billionaires or Samuel Alito and his wife’s love of far-right flags. Regardless, it’s a massive threat that will take a Herculean effort to pull off.

How wildly off target is today's ruling on Trump's immunity claim? Retired Alabama attorney Donald Watkins, who is widely recognized as an expert on criminal-defense and civil-rights law, has provided insight in our post of  2/29/24:

The issue before the court in Trump's immunity case could not be more simple. Perhaps no one has put it more succinctly than longtime Alabama attorney Donald Watkins, who has tried some of the nation's best-known cases in criminal-defense and civil-rights law. He also has become a leading voice in online investigative journalism.

From a Legal Schnauzer post dated Feb. 6, 2024, under the headline "Criminal-defense expert: Trump's attempt to have appeals court grant him immunity was doomed from the outset, which former president should have known":

Donald V. Watkins, longtime Alabama attorney and one of the nation's foremost authorities on criminal defense (see here and here), says Donald Trump's attempt to have a court declare that absolute immunity shielded him from prosecution for alleged criminal acts committed while he served his first term as president (2017-2021) was an exercise in futility. That's because no provision of law allowed the D.C. Circuit Court to grant the relief Trump was seeking. In short, Trump's complaint was little more than a glorified "snipe hunt," which he is expected to continue by filing an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. -- even though there is little chance the result will change.

Under the headline "D.C. Appeals Court: There is No Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts," Watkins writes:

Today, a federal court of appeals in Washington confirmed for the public what most competent lawyers knew all along – there is no such thing in U.S. law as presidential immunity for criminal acts.

None of the 46 U.S. presidents has ever enjoyed such immunity.

Presidential immunity for criminal acts is not authorized in the U.S. Constitution. It is not authorized in any federal statute. It is not authorized in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Such an immunity claim is merely a figment of Donald Trump’s imagination. This was a “bullshit” legal argument when it was first asserted by Trump’s lawyers.

We are NOT running a monarchy in America.  There is no King, Queen, or Emperor, who is above in law.

This is how Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics counsel for the George W. Bush administration, puts it:  "There is a substantial chance Trump is being blackmailed by Putin." Was Richard Painter shocked that SCOTUS would even hear Trump's immunity claim? Sure sounds like it.


Poynter Institute's fact-check shows how Trump turned debate into a festival of lies, while Biden clearly won on substance and appeared more presidential

(CNN)

Four days after last Thursday night's presidential debate, Americans probably still are wondering: "How many statements made in the debate were actually true?" The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a nonprofit journalism school and research organization in St. Petersburg, Florida, conducted a comprehensive fact-check on the debate, and the results were disheartening -- at least for those seeking serious, fact-based discussion on major issues of the day. The debate essentially turned into a falsehood-infested exercise in gaslighting, thanks mainly to Donald Trump's willingness to engage in shameless, rapid-fire rhetoric that had little, if anything, to do with facts. Trump came away looking like a "winner," based on post-debate polls. Biden, struggling to clearly express himself while struggling with a cold, appeared to be the "loser," but he clearly outperformed Trump  on substance -- and any objective observer surely saw Biden as the more presidential and informed of the two. One CNN fact-checker said Trump mostly presented an "avalanche of lies." From the CNN report:

Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump made false and misleading claims during CNN’s presidential debate on Thursday – but Trump did so far more than Biden, just like in their debates in 2020.

Trump made more than 30 false claims at the Thursday debate. They included numerous claims that CNN and others have already debunked during the current presidential campaign or prior.

Trump’s repeat falsehoods included his assertions that some Democratic-led states allow babies to be executed after birth, that every legal scholar and everybody in general wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, that there were no terror attacks during his presidency, that Iran didn’t fund terror groups during his presidency, that the US has provided more aid to Ukraine than Europe has, that Biden for years referred to Black people as “super predators,” that Biden is planning to quadruple people’s taxes, that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 National Guard troops for the US Capitol on January 6, 2021that Americans don’t pay the cost of his tariffs on China and other countries, that Europe accepts no American cars, that he is the president who got the Veterans Choice program through Congress, and that fraud marred the results of the 2020 election.

Trump also added some new false claims, such as his assertions that the US currently has its biggest budget deficit and its biggest trade deficit with China. Both records actually occurred under Trump.

Biden made at least nine false or misleading claims in the debate.

Poynter's fact check shows exactly how and when Trump resorted to lies, while CNN moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash -- perhaps overwhelmed by the sheer volume of Trump's dishonest statements -- struggled to maintain any sense of  control.

Poyntor's post-debate breakdown shows that if either candidate "won" the debate, it was Biden; Trump did not do anything to merit being called a winner, and he once again raised this question: Is he a serious candidate and does he try to even pretend that his campaign is serious.  

 The fact check at poynter.org, with assistance from PolitiFact, found the following:

* Trump made statements that were mostly or totally false on immigration. His claim that Biden allowed people to come to the U.S. "from jails, prisons, and mental institutions" was rated "pants on fire" false.

* Biden's claim that he changed the law so that "we now have 40 percent fewer illegal border crossings" was rated mostly true.

* On border security, Trump's claim that "we had the safest border in the history of our country" was rated mostly false. Poynter wrote:

When the COVID-19 pandemic started, immigration dropped drastically worldwide as governments enacted policies limiting people’s movement.

In the months before Trump left office, illegal immigration was rising again. A spike in migrants, especially unaccompanied minors, started in the spring 2020 during the Trump administration and generally continued to climb each month.

Illegal immigration during Trump’s administration was higher than under both of former President Barack Obama’s terms.

* Biden's claim that "Border Patrol endorsed me, endorsed my position" was half true. Poynter wrote:

The National Border Patrol Council — the U.S. Border Patrol’s union endorsed a bipartisan border security bill in February. But it didn’t endorse Biden.

Here’s what Brandon Judd, the union’s president, said about the bill in February:

“While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo. This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage.” Judd said his organization never has endorsed Biden, but did endorse Trump in 2020.

* Trump's claim that Biden "allowed in 18 million people" is rated false. Poynter explains:

Immigration officials have encountered immigrants illegally crossing the border 9.7 million times under Biden’s presidency. When accounting for “got aways” — people who aren’t stopped by border officials — the number rises to about 11.4 million.

But encounters don’t mean admissions. Encounters represent events, so one person who tried to cross the border twice counts for two encounters. Also, not everyone encountered is let in. Many encounters result in deportations. The Department of Homeland Security estimates about 4 million encounters have led to expulsions or removals.

* On inflation and the economy, Trump's claim that "(Biden) caused this inflation. I gave him a country with … essentially no inflation. It was perfect.”was rated mostly false. Poynter writes:

When Biden was inaugurated, year-over-year inflation was about 1.4%. However, that was shaped by the still-weak economy during the coronavirus pandemic, (which started on Trump's watch) and was still a serious threat when Biden was inaugurated.

As the pandemic conditions improved, the economy accelerated. Consumers were ready to buy products, but the pandemic had prompted supply chain shortages. This, combined with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine which raised gasoline prices, led to inflation, peaking at 9% about a year and a half into Biden’s presidency. That was the highest in about four decades.

Economists generally say Biden’s coronavirus relief plan, the American Rescue Plan, did exacerbate inflation by putting more money into consumers’ hands at a time when supplies were running short. But they do not believe that Biden caused high inflation single-handedly.

* Trump's claim that “You look at the cost of food, where it’s double, triple and quadruple.” was rated false. Poynter writes: 

Food costs have risen faster under President Joe Biden than under any of his five most recent predecessors. However, the 21% increase in food prices on Biden’s watch is well below what Trump claimed. Quadrupling food costs would be an increase of 300%, or more than 10 times larger than what Trump said.

Specific categories of food have spiked more than food prices overall. For instance, egg prices are 84% higher today than when Biden took office. But for every food category that has outrun overall food inflation, there’s another category that has risen more slowly than average.

Also, this increase was spread over three and a half years, making the annual increase about 6%, part of which has been offset by rising wages.

* Biden's claim that "“Economists say (Trump’s proposed tariffs are) going to cost the average American $2,500 a year or more.” was rated true. Poynter explains:

Most economists expect that Trump’s proposed 10% across-the-board tariff on foreign products will force consumers to pay more. The specific size of that hit is open to debate, though Biden offered a figure somewhat higher than current estimates.

Just days before the debate, the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, projected additional costs per household of $1,700 to $2,350 annually.

* Biden's claim that "Semiconductor jobs “to build these chips … pay over $100,000. You don’t need a college degree for them.” was rated mostly false. Poynter writes:

The average semiconductor industry salary is around $170,000, figures from Oxford Economics and Semiconductor Industry Association, a trade group, show. But this figure includes all jobs within the industry and doesn’t single out jobs requiring no college degree.

To earn a salary of $110,000 or higher, employees in the semiconductor industry need undergraduate or graduate-level degrees, the groups say.

 * Biden's claim that “Black unemployment is at the lowest level it’s been in a long, long time” was rated mostly true. Poynter writes:

The record for low Black unemployment rate was set under Biden in April 2023, at 4.8%. It has risen modestly since then to 6.1% in May 2024, but that’s still lower than it was for much of the first two years under Trump.

* Trump's claim that “The only jobs (Biden) created are for illegal immigrants and bounce-back jobs, bounce back from the COVID” was rated false. From Poynter:

Since Biden took office in early 2021, the number of foreign-born Americans who are employed has risen by about 5.6 million. But over the same time period, the number of native-born Americans employed has increased by almost 7.4 million. . . . 

Employment on Biden’s watch passed its pre-pandemic level by June 2022, about a year-and-a-half into his term. Since then, the U.S. economy has created an additional 6.2 million jobs.

* Regarding Trump's legal cases, Trump's claim that Biden “indicted me because I was his opponent.” is rated false. "Poynter explains:

The Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into Trump’s business records began before Biden was president, but Biden was president by the time Trump was charged in 2023.

After Michael Cohen, who had been an attorney for Trump, pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2018, then-Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. opened an investigation into the payments, Politico reported. That was before Biden was president. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg hired a former Justice Department prosecutor in 2022. But experts told us that doesn’t prove Biden was involved.

Trump has also been indicted by a Fulton County, Georgia grand jury and two federal grand juries. Biden is not responsible for decisions by state or federal prosecutors to present cases to grand juries.

* Regarding Social Security, Medicare and taxes, Trump's statement that “Social Security, he’s destroying it, because millions of people are pouring into our country, and they’re putting them onto Social Security. They’re putting them onto Medicare, Medicaid.” was rated false. From Poynter:

It’s wrong to say that immigration will destroy Social Security. Social Security’s fiscal challenges stem from a shortage of workers compared with beneficiaries.

Immigration is far from a fiscal fix-all for Social Security’s challenges. But having more immigrants in the United States would increase the worker-to-beneficiary ratio, potentially for decades, thus extending the program’s solvency, experts say.

Most immigrants in the U.S. illegally are also ineligible for Social Security. However, people who entered the U.S. illegally and were granted humanitarian parole — a temporary permission to stay in the country — for more than one year, are eligible for Social Security.

* Biden's claim that "Trump “wants to get rid of Social Security, he thinks there’s plenty to cut in Social Security" was rated false. Poynter writes:

Biden went further than previous attacks to say Trump would cut the program entirely. In a March CNBC interview, Trump said of entitlement programs such as Social Security, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.”

However, Trump quickly walked that statement back. Also, his campaign website says that not “a single penny” should be cut from Social Security, and he’s repeated similar lines in campaign rallies.

Before the 2024 campaign, Trump said about a half dozen times that he’s open to major overhauls of Social Security, including cuts and privatization.

* Regarding taxes, Trump's claim that "(Biden) wants to raise your taxes by four times. He wants to raise everybody’s taxes by four times” was rated false. From Poynter:

Biden proposed a tax increase of about 7% over the next decade, which is far lower than the 300% increase that former President Donald Trump claimed. (Doubling would be a 100% increase and tripling would be a 200% increase.)

About 83% of the proposed Biden tax increase would be borne by the top 1% of taxpayers, a level that starts at just under $1 million a year in income.

Taxpayers earning up to $60,400 would see their yearly taxes decline on average, and taxpayers earning $60,400 to $107,300 would see an annual increase of $20 on average.

* Biden's statement that "“I said I’d never raise the tax on anybody if you’re making less than $400,000. I didn’t” was rated mostly true. Poynter writes:

Biden has said repeatedly that he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000, a promise he campaigned on in 2020.

He has not raised any individual income taxes on Americans earning less than $400,000 a year. It’s always possible that individual taxpayers could see increases because of changes in their personal circumstances.

Some corporate tax increases enacted on Biden’s watch have a small projected pass-through effect on taxpayers. Economists generally allocate a portion of the tax burden from corporate taxes to shareholders and partly to consumers, who often pay higher prices as corporations factor the higher taxes into pricing.

The White House has told PolitiFact that Biden would let the tax cuts Trump signed in 2017 expire for wealthier taxpayers, but would not let Americans making less than $400,000 see any tax increase.

* Trump's claim that "“I gave you the largest tax cut in history” was rated false. Poynter writes:

When it was passed in 2017, Trump’s tax cut was, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the fourth-largest since 1940. And as a percentage of gross domestic product, it ranked seventh in history, according to figures published by the Treasury Department.

* Regarding crime, Trump stated: "What he’s done to the Black population is horrible, including the fact that for 10 years, he called them super predators … in the 1990s.” Poynter rates this statement false and writes:

In a 1993 Senate floor speech, Biden, then a U.S. senator from Delaware, spoke about doing something for young people who lacked supervision, structure or opportunities. He said the country needed to focus on them, because otherwise, a portion of them would “become the predators 15 years from now.”

Biden did not single out any racial or ethnic group. In a 1998 speech at an attorneys general conference, Biden also used the term “predators.” He didn’t say he was talking about Black youth.

* On health care, Biden said: “We brought down the price (of)  prescription drug(s), which is a major issue for many people, to $15 for an insulin shot, as opposed to $400.” Poynter rated this half true and wrote:

Biden touted his efforts to reduce prescription drug costs by referring to the $35 insulin price cap his administration put in place as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But he flubbed the number during the debate, saying it was lowered to $15. In his closing statement, Biden corrected the number to $35.

The price of insulin for Medicare enrollees starting in 2023 dropped to $35 a month, not $15. Drug pricing experts told PolitFact when we rated a similar claim that most Medicare enrollees were likely not paying a monthly average of $400 before the changes, although because costs vary depending on coverage phases and dosages, some might have paid that much in a given month.

* Biden said: "Trump “wants to get rid of the ACA again.” Poynter rated this half true and wrote:

In 2016, Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. In the White House, Trump supported a failed effort to do just that. In the years since, he has repeatedly said he would dismantle the health care law in campaign stops and social media posts throughout 2023.

In March, however, Trump walked back this stance, writing on Truth Social that he “isn’t running to terminate” the ACA but to make it “better” and “less expensive.” Trump hasn’t said how he would do this.

* Trump said: "I’m the one that got the insulin down for the seniors.” That was rated mostly false, and Poynter wrote:

When he was president, Trump instituted the Part D Senior Savings Model, a program that capped insulin costs to $35 a month for some older Americans in drug plans that chose to participate.

But because it was voluntary, only 38% of all Medicare drug plans, including Medicare Advantage plans, participated in 2022, according to KFF. Trump’s voluntary plan also covered only one form of each dosage and insulin type.

Biden points to the Inflation Reduction Act’s mandatory $35 insulin cap as a major achievement. This cap applies to all Medicare prescription plans. It also expanded the cap to all covered insulin types and dosages. Although Trump’s model was a start, it did not have the sweeping reach that Biden’s mandatory cap achieved.

*  Regarding a ranking pf presidential historians, Biden said: "Presidential historians 'voted who was the worst president in American history. 'From best to worst. They said he (Trump) was the worst in all of American history.” This was rated true, and Poynter wrote:

The 2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey, released in February, collected responses from 154 presidential historians, which included current and recent members of the American Political Science Association. The survey ranked Biden as the 14th best president in U.S. history, and put Trump last.

The historians were asked to give every president a score, from 0 to 100. Abraham Lincoln topped the list with an average score of 95, while Biden scored an average of 62.66. Trump averaged just under 11 points.

* Finally, what about the argument near the end of the debate about the candidates' golf games?  Poynter writes:

Somehow the presidential debate turned into a fight over who’s the better golfer. Biden said he would have a driving competition with Trump and claimed he was a 6 handicap while serving as vice president.

Trump scoffed. “He can't hit a ball 50 yards.”

Joe Biden is currently listed with the United States Golf Association as holding a 6.7 handicap playing out of Fieldstone Golf Club in Delaware. Biden hasn’t logged a score in the system since 2018. Scores are typically self-reported, and a handicap comes from an average of the lowest 8 of the most recent 20 posted scores.

The lower the handicap you have, the better golfer you are. Ivanka Trump, for instance, is a 20.9 handicap and Eric Trump is listed as a 13.6 (without a round since 2015). Donald Trump is in the system as a member of the prestigious Winged Foot Golf Club in New York. He lists a handicap of 2.5 but hasn’t posted a score since 2021.