Newsweek: Biden Pardoning Hunter Proves That Being a Biden Is a Get Out of Jail Free Card

By MArk R. Weaver

It's been a big week for Joe Biden's presidential pardons. He kicked it off by sparing a pair of turkeysand wrapped it up by gobbling up controversy, pardoning his son Hunter.

Biden had previously promised Americans he would not use his clemency power to shield his son from the two criminal cases against him. That pledge lasted about as long as Thanksgiving leftovers.

I've previously argued that, compared to the authority granted to all the other government actors at the federal, state, and local levels, the president's powers are limited. But the pardon power is among the strongest of a chief executive's tools.

Some founding fathers, including George Mason, worried about abuse. Mason even said a president might pardon someone just to cover up the president's involvement in that person's crimes. Given that the upcoming Hunter Biden trial for tax felonies may have included testimony about how and when the presidential son shared fees from questionable foreign sources with his father, Mason could've had a side gig as a soothsayer.

Yet the Constitutional Convention rejected those fears, and passed Article II, Section 2, which has no appeal provision for presidential pardons and the only limits are no pardons for impeachments or state crimes.

Alexander Hamilton defended the necessity of the pardon power in Federalist No. 74, calling it an essential component of justice. Yet, like a turkey carving knife, it can cut both ways. Those in blue jerseys cheering this move are likely to strongly oppose the purported pardon priorities of the next Trump term. Elections have consequences.

Pardons can unite the country. Exactly 161 years ago this week, Abraham Lincoln offered pardons to Confederates who swore allegiance to the Union and endorsed emancipation. A century or so later, President Jimmy Carter gave a blanket pardon to the draft dodgers who fled America after refusing to fight in the Vietnam War and President Gerald Ford pre-emptively pardoned his predecessor, Richard Nixon, in an effort to heal a country fraught with political animosity surrounding the Watergate scandal.

The peculiar instance of a president pardoning his son won't heal our national political wounds and might actively stoke the cynicism that's been in overdrive lately. And this pardon now means that any hope Joe Biden had of acquiring the post-presidential halo of the last Democratic one-term president, Jimmy Carter, is all but gone.

It didn't have to be this way. I was a lone voice calling on Biden to preemptively pardon former Trump to calm the roiling waters of American political opinion. I knew the idea wouldn't go anywhere, but I thought—then and now—it would have been an excellent exemplar of grace in a graceless arena.

In announcing the pardon, the president essentially claimed—without acknowledging the irony in his words—that the charges against this son were somehow trumped up by his own Justice Department. It's nonsense, of course.

In fact, rather than politically prosecuting the president's son, only an eagle-eyed federal judge reading the details of a proposed plea agreement stopped the Biden Justice Department from handing the younger Biden a creampuff deal that would have given him immunity largely similar to this pardon.

Biden was surely within his power to pardon Hunter, but the message it sends may be more dangerous than the train of presidential abuses we've come to expect from his administration. The decision suggests that being a Biden is the ultimate "get out of jail free" card.

The pardon power was meant to correct wrongs and offer hope. But hope isn't equally distributed when your last name matters. There's no national reconciliation to be had here, just a wayward son spared from the bracing legal accountability so many others have had to face.

Trust is the currency of any presidency. Break it, and your power to govern loses value faster than an indicted pyramid scheme. The founders assumed public outrage would act as a check on unjust pardons but, with the election over and Joe Biden already boxing up his things for the moving vans, angry Americans have no recourse. In an era of outrage overflow, this latest transgression will do little more than add to the disgust of those who presume the rules are different at the top.

The presidential pardon is a powerful tool, but it's tenuous. When used wisely, it rights wrongs and restores faith in government. When used poorly—as this one was—it crosses ethical lines that the Founders feared.

This reminds us that some things can be constitutional but not just. The way I heard it, when Lady Justice heard about the pardon for Hunter, she dropped the scales she'd been holding and reached for a stiff drink.

By trading credibility for kinship, the Constitution protects Biden today, but the harsh verdict of the ages will be unforgiving.

Mark R. Weaver is a prosecutor and formerly served as a Justice Department spokesman and Deputy Attorney General of Ohio. He is the author of "A Wordsmith's Work." X: @MarkRWeaver

Newsweek: Your Candidate Lost? Don't Worry: Presidential Power Is Minuscule →

By Mark R. Weaver

We'll soon know who will occupy the White House for the next four years. If that turns out to be the candidate you opposed, don't fret: Presidents have less influence than you think.

Federalism and the Tenth Amendment give most authority to state and local government. COVID is a good example: Your governor or local school board had more impact on the measures imposed on you than the President did. And the president-elect you're aggravated with will have to share the limited power of the federal government with 535 lawmakers in Congress and several hundred federal judges and justices.

A monarchy vests government power in one person, leading to the kind of abuses that sparked American independence. Here in our constitutional republic (a more accurate term than "democracy"), authority is divided among many political actors.

In Federalist #51, James Madison called this process the "partition of power." He pointed out that strong-willed politicians will naturally struggle for influence, but with federalism and checks and balances, "ambition [will] counteract ambition."

It makes sense. Smart parents know that when there are two hungry kids hankering for the last cookie, separation of powers looks like this: One sibling makes the cut, and the other picks the first slice. Fairness has never been so yummy.

Want a new law? Don't look to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Take your idea to your member of Congress and, like that classic Schoolhouse Rock video, see how far your bill will go. I won't sing this part but it's because Article I of the Constitution gives "all legislative powers" to Congress, not the chief executive.

President Harry Truman was keenly aware of this, which is why he lamented, "I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have sense enough to do without my persuading them. That's all the powers of the president amount to."

You're worried that the president you'll love to hate will ignore Article I and start issuing executive orders to go around Congress? While that has become something of a fad lately, you can be sure that state attorneys general from your political party will file with a friendly federal court and have many of those orders blocked.

The interplay of these checks and balances is like a chess match. A player launches an attack, but the opponent has counter moves that can neutralize or reverse the advantage.

Separation of powers means law and policy are more likely to take hold when they have broad public support. That might even mean that a president of the other party will have to come to your party and seek compromise. And if the president refuses to compromise, the next congressional election (just two years from now) could bring about quite a rebuke.

The jaundiced jabber jaws on cable news and social media have been predicting doom if the presidential candidate they oppose wins. Political enemies will be dispatched, health care will be eliminated, and fascism will run wild! None of that will happen. It's not because I trust anyone running for president. It's because the strength of our constitutional guardrails can stop the most determined demagogue from driving our country off the road.

Let's examine a few nightmare scenarios if your candidate is defeated.

What happens if the new president tells the FBI to arrest you for no good reason? You'll be released on bail, and your case will be dismissed by a judge who doesn't work for the president. Then you'll sue and win monetary damages for false arrest.

Or what if there's a hateful policy you oppose, and the person who won the White House promised to make it law? Unless 218 members of the House and 60 senators vote for it, that policy is just unfulfilled campaign blather.

But can't the new president nominate judges with a legal philosophy at odds with yours? Sure, but those nominees will go nowhere until at least 50 senators vote "yes" on confirmation. And judges who act outside the Constitution or laws will see higher courts overturn them.

The list goes on.

Bookmark this column to read again if your candidate loses. All is not lost. You live in a country where people are more free and more protected from tyranny than any other. Here, those assuming power can be quickly humbled, either through robust checks and balances on their power or via the stunning verdicts often handed down in the court of public opinion.

And, historically, control over the presidency has bounced back and forth between the parties more often than a pickleball at your local rec center.

Political tides rise and fall. Leaders change. All the while, the Constitution's safeguards remain steadfast. The American republic endures by thoughtful design, always keeping the pendulum of power balanced and bounded.

Mark R. Weaver is a prosecutor and formerly served as a Justice Department spokesman and Deputy Attorney General of Ohio. He is the author of "A Wordsmith's Work." X: @MarkRWeaver

The State Of Ohio: Issue 1 →

Features Ryan Stubenrauch

The Supreme Court rules on who can use ballot drop boxes, and who can’t. And the second of two conversations about the redistricting overhaul known as Issue 1 with an opponent of the amendment. Studio guest is Republican strategist Ryan Stubenrauch.

Watch the full interview here

Cincinnati Enquirer: Biden-Harris should face an electoral reckoning for failing to free US hostages →

By Mark R. Weaver

The one-year anniversary of American hostages being held by Middle East terrorists should force a political reckoning. The president and vice president whose administration has been unable to free innocent Americans held abroad ought to be rejected by voters.

I’m speaking, of course, about the election. The 1980 election.

In that contest, things looked rather familiar to modern eyes. The incumbent Democrat, Jimmy Carter, presided over a frail economy replete with worrisome inflation, energy prices, and interest rates. Prominent Democrats − led by a Kennedy − tried to force him off the ticket. Carter’s challenger, Republican Ronald Reagan, was routinely derided by a national press corps that seemed uniquely interested in stopping Reagan from winning.

A Newsweek poll taken October 29-30, 1980 showed the race at a statistical tie: Reagan held 44% of the electorate compared to Carter’s 43%, and independent John Anderson at 7%​.

And then the reckoning began.

The nation was angry about Islamic radicals in Iran who − the year before − had attacked the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and taken 52 Americans hostage. Americans followed the catastrophe closely, so much so that ABC News started an 11:30 p.m. nightly newscast entitled "The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage" − later renamed as "Nightline."

Carter and his equally ineffectual vice president, Walter Mondale, had been unable to obtain the release of the hostages and had even presided over a botched rescue attempt that resulted in eight U.S. servicemen being killed.

Using the longer format of weekend news, major papers and nightly news noted with gusto the anniversary of Iran’s act of war, which would fall on election day itself. The lengthy news and editorial accounts served as a pre-election reminder of the Carter-Mondale failures. 

In his book, Carter White House Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan recalls that the tied race was shaken up when polling conducted Sunday night and Monday showed a sudden avalanche of support for Reagan. Jordan broke the news to President Carter on Election eve − before regular voting had even begun − that Carter was poised to lose by a landslide. Reagan went on to defeat Carter by nearly 10 percentage points.

It was quite an electoral reckoning.

It's been said that history repeats itself because no one was listening the first time. Which brings us to October 7. 

In addition to the dozens of Israelis taken hostage one year ago this week by Hamas − a group our State Department labeled as terrorists decades ago − seven Americans were also captured. Most are likely alive. Yet Joe Biden and Kamala Harris − like their counterparts Carter and Mondale − have failed in their responsibility to bring them home.

Former President Trump promises a "peace through strength" approach that echoes the ideals of President Reagan. Not surprisingly, after Reagan’s resounding victory, negotiations about releasing the hostages sped up. Carter was in earnest to resuscitate his tattered legacy and the Iranian terrorists were in a rush because they knew their best opportunity was with Carter, not Reagan, who had made clear he would deal with them much more harshly. 

Joe Biden held himself accountable for his failed presidency by stepping aside when, in a political coup not unlike the Kennedy effort in 1980, fellow Democrats strong-armed him off the ticket. But Kamala Harris − who, according to Biden, had equal authority to act in both domestic and foreign affairs − is similarly culpable for the failure to bring our people home.

This is not to suggest that getting hostages back from hate-driven killers is easy. It’s not. Yet both Harris and Trump have records that will help voters predict what their respective administrations might look like with respect to the Middle East cauldron. Trump helped bring about the Abraham Accords, which might’ve led the way to a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians. Harris has no similar accomplishment, and her administration’s support for Iran’s effort to become a nuclear nation and their naïve delisting of the Houthis as a terror group has exposed her policy as feckless, given the aggression of these entities against Israeli civilians and American warships. 

Coupled with the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal that saw refugees hanging on the outside of airplanes as the best means of survival and 13 U.S. military heroes killed, this administration might even surpass the “crisis of confidence” Carter once lamented.

Given the increased atomization of news consumption, it’s hard to imagine that the voters of 2024 will coalesce around the anniversary of the heinous attacks of Oct. 7 as did the voters of 1980 with the Iranian hostage-taking.

Nonetheless, once again, America is at a crossroads. The failures of the Biden-Harris administration are as undeniable as those of Carter and Mondale. Will we repeat the mistakes of the past or embrace change? Like the voters of 1980, we too must decide if it's time for a reckoning.

Townhall: Hostages, Failures, and a Political Reckoning →

BY Mark R. Weaver

The one-year anniversary of American hostages being held by Middle East terrorists should force a political reckoning. The president and vice president whose administration has been unable to free innocent Americans held abroad ought to be rejected by voters.

I’m speaking, of course, about the election. The 1980 election.

In that contest, things looked rather familiar to modern eyes. The incumbent Democrat, Jimmy Carter, presided over a frail economy replete with worrisome inflation, energy prices, and interest rates. Prominent Democrats -- led by a Kennedy -- tried to force him off the ticket. Carter’s challenger, Republican Ronald Reagan, was routinely derided by a national press corps that seemed uniquely interested in stopping Reagan from winning.

A Newsweek poll taken October 29-30, 1980 showed the race at a statistical tie: Reagan held 44% of the electorate compared to Carter’s 43%, and independent John Anderson at 7%.

And then the reckoning began.

The nation was angry about Islamic radicals in Iran who – the year before – had attacked the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and taken 52 Americans hostage. Americans followed the catastrophe closely, so much so that ABC News started a 11:30pmnightly newscast entitled “The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage” -- later renamed as “Nightline.”

Carter and his equally ineffectual vice president, Walter Mondale, had been unable to obtain the release of the hostages and had even presided over a botched rescue attempt that resulted in eight U.S. servicemen being killed.

Using the longer format of weekend news, major papers and nightly news noted with gusto the anniversary of Iran’s act of war, which would fall on election day itself. The lengthy news and editorial accounts served as a pre-election reminder of the Carter-Mondale failures. 

In his book, Carter White House Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan recalls that the tied race was shaken up when polling conducted Sunday night and Monday showed a sudden avalanche of support for Reagan. Jordan broke the news to President Carter on Election eve – before regular voting had even begun – that Carter was poised to lose by a landslide. Reagan went on to defeat Carter by nearly ten percentage points.

It was quite an electoral reckoning.

It's been said that history repeats itself because no one was listening the first time. Which brings us to October 7. 

In addition to the dozens of Israelis taken hostage one year ago this week by Hamas -- a group our State Department labeled as terrorists decades ago -- seven Americans were also captured. Most are likely alive. Yet Joe Biden and Kamala Harris – like their counterparts Carter and Mondale – have failed in their responsibility to bring them home.

Former President Trump promises a “peace through strength” approach that echoes the ideals of President Reagan. Not surprisingly, after Reagan’s resounding victory, negotiations about releasing the hostages sped up. Carter was in earnest to resuscitate his tattered legacy and the Iranian terrorists were in a rush because they knew their best opportunity was with Carter, not Reagan, who had made clear he would deal with them much more harshly. 

Joe Biden held himself accountable for his failed presidency by stepping aside when, in a political coup not unlike the Kennedy effort in 1980, fellow Democrats strong-armed him off the ticket. But Kamala Harris – who, according to Biden, had equal authority to act in both domestic and foreign affairs – is similarly culpable for the failure to bring our people home.  

This is not to suggest that getting hostages back from hate-driven killers is easy. It’s not. Yet both Harris and Trump have records that will help voters predict what their respective administrations might look like with respect to the Middle East cauldron. Trump helped bring about the Abraham Accords, which might’ve led the way to a peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians. Harris has no similar accomplishment, and her administration’s support for Iran’s effort to become a nuclear nation and their naïve delisting of the Houthis as a terror group has exposed her policy as feckless, given the aggression of these entities against Israeli civiliansand American warships. 

Coupled with the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal that saw refugees hanging on the outside of airplanes as the best means of survival and 13 U.S. military heroes killed, this administration might even surpass the “crisis of confidence” Carter once lamented.

Given the increased atomization of news consumption, it’s hard to imagine that the voters of 2024 will coalesce around the anniversary of the heinous attacks of October 7 as did the voters of 1980 with the Iranian hostage-taking.

Nonetheless, once again, America is at a crossroads. The failures of the Biden-Harris administration are as undeniable as those of Carter and Mondale. Will we repeat the mistakes of the past or embrace change? Like the voters of 1980, we too must decide if it's time for a reckoning.

The Ohio Press Network: ‘Mind your own damn business’ →

Commentary BY Jack windsor, MARK R. WEAVER

Last night Democratic VP nominee Gov. Tim Walz repeated his now common refrain “mind your own damn business.”

Today former deputy attorney general of Ohio Mark R. Weaver, a friend of The Windsor Report, joined the show to deliver his fair-minded response to the refrain.

Listen to the entire discussion with Weaver here

The Ohio Press Network: First, what the press won’t tell you: Americans aren’t racist, sexist; second, election contributions shouldn’t be limited →

Commentary BY Jack windsor, MARK R. WEAVER

Former Deputy Attorney General of Ohio Mark R. Weaver joined The Windsor Report Friday to chat about the American electorate - voters with propensities wholly different than the mainstream press would have you believe.

Plus, Weaver pitches the idea that election contributions shouldn’t be limited with one caveat: show people the money! (where it’s coming from).

Listen to the discussion here

Newsweek: Limiting Political Participation Based on Wealth Is un-American →

BY Mark R. Weaver

There's no government limit on how many hours a day you can stand on a street corner holding a sign encouraging people to vote for your favorite political candidate. The need for sleep, food, or work might intervene but—fear not—the guardrails on government power laid out in the First Amendment mean no bureaucrat can stop you from devoting all of your free time to this kind of political advocacy.

So, why should government be empowered to outlaw you from donating all or most of your money to that same favored candidate? It shouldn't. Red states like Utah and Alabama allow unlimited individual contributions to candidates for statewide office. The same goes for blue states like Oregon and Virginia and swing states like Pennsylvania and Missouri. But the federal government limits donations to a presidential campaign to just $3,300.

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled that political donations are a form of protected free speech. A donor with a dollar and one with a million dollars should have the same, co-equal right to express political beliefs without being silenced by an arbitrary limitation that we wouldn't dare impose on other forms of political advocacy.

When it comes to fueling campaigns, prosperous Americans typically have more money to give while retired people usually have more time to volunteer. Neither group should be discriminated against—no matter what candidate they support.

The founders who sparked the American experiment considered this. They knew that the ability to donate freely could be a check against mob rule, something they viewed with concern. Lifted by more financing, minority opinions can allow for a more robust debate where Americans can consume all sides of a political issue or candidacy and decide for themselves.

Some have suggested that the Constitution should be amended to silence some political speech through the steel fist of government coercion, with the ultimate punishment for those who don't submit being punitive fines or even imprisonment. This radical change could only be accomplished by amending the Constitution, which requires two thirds of Congress and three quarters of all states to assent. Gathering such super majorities in a nation as currently divided as ours would be as likely as training a school of sharks to be vegetarians.

So, let the prince and the pauper spend as they will. Yet I suggest this caveat—unlimited donations can be tempered by day one, dollar one disclosure. To the extent that government has any role, creating a system that ensures only U.S. citizens are donating and then revealing how much they donate is likely to withstand constitutional scrutiny. I'm not a huge fan of the notion of "dark money" being some sort of unique evil but I also don't fear a bad case of political sunburn from legislating more sunlight in this endeavor.

If we permit the public to see everyone who is financially backing each candidate and how much they're contributing, reporters can write stories about it and voters can consider whether they care much at all. And regulators can punish the non-citizens who meddle in our elections—which typically occurs on both sides of the partisan equation.

With such full disclosure, there would no longer be an incentive for contributors to use secretive, under-the-table contributions. The result would be a more open political process without restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans to advance their desired level of advocacy.

Modern campaigns require more money to thoroughly communicate a candidate's message and platform to voters. I've advised hundreds of candidates, and I've taught election law so I can report that the cost of running campaigns has skyrocketed in the last decade. TV and radio rates are higher than ever, and the cost of a single mailer sent to just one mailbox is nearing a dollar. And when a campaign is sending out mailers to a million or more voters, it adds up faster than a shopping trip in a Biden-era supermarket.

Outdated and ill-advised campaign donation limits force campaigns to use thin, even shallow messaging aimed at a small segment of swing voters rather than educating as many voters as possible. They just don't have the money to include all voters in the conversation. It's more than a truism to declare that less information leads to a less informed electorate.

So, what does this have to do with the election of 2024? Plenty. While it's fair to point out that Vice President Kamala Harris has ascended to the position of the Democratic Party nominee without a vote of the people but with tens of millions of dollars from Hollywood dilettantes and Wall Street wolves, government ought not be the factor that intervenes to punish her for such plutocratic plunder. Come November, the true owners of our Republic will have their say not by contributing money—but votes. And we can all agree that process is priceless.

Mark R. Weaver is a prosecutor and formerly served as a Justice Department spokesman and Deputy Attorney General of Ohio. He is the author of "A Wordsmith's Work." X: @MarkRWeaver

Cincinnati Enquirer: Ohio redistricting amendment would further divide us →

By Mark R. Weaver

In less than 90 days, Ohio will vote on a state constitutional amendment proposed by a hyper-partisan front group posing as "citizens not politicians." Ironically, it’s being shoved ahead by politicians − nearly all from one political party and bankrolled with more than $25 million of the darkest of dark money. This power play is fueled by Democrats tired of being repeatedly rejected by Ohio voters.

If this vandalization of our state’s governing charter is approved, Ohio legislative maps would no longer be drawn by elected officials directly accountable to voters. Instead, retired politicians − whom voters can’t choose − would partner with a private for-profit company to help draw legislative lines. When I was Ohio’s Deputy Attorney General, I co-authored Ohio’s Sunshine Law Manual. If there’s one thing I learned, it’s that private companies taking over government work rarely adds sunshine to the effort.

Over the years, I served as a political advisor to leaders on both sides of this issue, and they are people of goodwill. But I’ve also taught election law at the University of Akron, and I see the danger this Trojan Horse will bring to Ohio.

Unlike the past, when Ohioans voted out those who drew legislative lines, under the proposed system, voters would be blocked from challenging the lines. The ploy even obstructs civil rights activists who are outraged about racist or otherwise illegal decisions made by the mapmakers from bringing their concerns to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Unlike the past, when Ohioans voted out those who drew legislative lines, under the proposed system, voters would be blocked from challenging the lines. The ploy even obstructs civil rights activists who are outraged about racist or otherwise illegal decisions made by the mapmakers from bringing their concerns to the Ohio Supreme Court.

In this most divisive era, the Ohio proposal would further divide us. With the overarching goal of electing more Democrats, those drawing lines will split neighbor from neighbor, fragment communities of interest, and impede people from getting involved in government.

Why is a proposal that would be laughed off the set of Shark Tank as impractical being advanced now? Political history reveals a nefarious scheme at play.

After each 10-year census, the party in power redraws Ohio’s legislative maps to reflect population shifts. The Democrats drew the maps in the 1970s, holding nearly two-thirds of the Ohio House. After the donkeys redrew legislative maps again in 1980s, Democrats maintained roughly 60% of the House seats for that decade.

Ohio voters asked Republicans to draw the maps in 1990 and 2000. But then something interesting and relevant to today happened. In the 2006 election, Ohio Democrats retook the House − even under the Republican-drawn maps.

Did you catch that? The minority party won seats with lines the majority party had drawn. How did they do it? The way campaigns are always won − with stronger candidates and better issues. Don’t let slick ads fueled by out-of-state demagoguesmislead you − good candidates running on relevant issues that engender broad support can win no matter who draws district lines.

Over the last several years, Ohio voters have adjudged Republicans to be the party of good governance and prudent policy, and that conclusion is wholly unrelated to legislative district lines. That’s because, for the past 15 years, every single state election for statewide office has gone to the candidate running as a Republican. Even Donald Trump twice won the Buckeye State with a healthy 8% margin or better. Lately, it seems like Ohio Republicans are the dazzling Harlem Globetrotters, and the Democrats are the hapless Washington Generals.

After years of such pathetic performance, Ohio Democrats didn’t look inward for the cause. Rather, they groused about the legislative lines. Partially in response, Ohio voters passed two state constitutional amendments to reform the redistricting process in 2015 and 2018. But − even under these reforms − like a teacher handing out failing grades, voters continued to reject Ohio Democrat candidates.

Undoubtedly, there are some Democrats who deserve a chance to lead. But their party’s policy positions have tilted far to the left and away from the values most Ohioans share. Instead of moderating their ideas or recruiting better candidates, Ohio Democrats want to change the rules so they can finally win.

Recently, Gov. Mike DeWine laid out a masterful case against this nonsense. Backers of the issue lowered the level of discourse by claiming the governor somehow needs someone to explain the issue to him.

Despite that incivility, the issue’s backers recognize that, in red state Ohio, they’ll need Republican votes to sell this scheme. That’s why they added a few token Republicans to the face of it. All the better to concoct a phony image of bipartisanship.

But taping a few feathers to a brick doesn’t make it a bird. And − like this proposed amendment − it still won’t fly.

The Ohio Press Network: Is Kamala’s bump in polls a honeymoon or is Trump doomed? →

Commentary BY Jack Windsor, MARK R. WEAVER

Former Ohio Deputy Attorney General Mark R. Weaver joined The Windsor Report Thursday to discuss the latest polls on Harris vs. Trump for the White House. Plus, Weaver sets the record straight on President Biden’s outlandish comments on saving democracy considering the authoritarian he has been since taking over the Oval Office.

Hear the full discussion between Weaver and Windsor on the above topics and much more here

Newsweek: 10 Ways to Unite As a Nation After the Attempted Assassination of Trump →

By Mark R. Weaver

The attempted assassination of former President Trump is just the latest reminder that the vitriolic hatred of political leaders with whom we disagree is a disturbing tremor, forewarning a seismic political earthquake. We saw previous rumbles when an anti-Trump lunatic attempted to murder Republican congressmen on a baseball practice field. And the fault lines continue to widen.

A congresswoman encouraged physical confrontations of political adversaries, the top U.S. Senate leader threatened Supreme Court justices, and Hollywood millionaires provoked violence against a president they despised. Those who ought to use their platforms to channel passionate political disagreements productively instead set the stage for the violence we saw at the Pennsylvania Trump rally.

The notion that the former president is the cause of this caustic turn in our politics is provably false. We've been fraying for 50 years or more.

Political violence is easy to denounce but it requires a more rigorous follow-through. For example, there's a law against protesting outside the private homes of Supreme Court justices. Yet even after a psycho showed up to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh and two other justices, the Biden Justice Department refuses to enforce that law.

Now should Attorney General Merrick Garland be physically assaulted for that lapse? Of course not. Impeach him, call him to Capitol Hill for hearings, or take any other lawful option available. Only those of low character or high psychosis think violence is the solution to political disagreements.

As a prosecutor, I believe that the criminal is fully responsible for his crime. But while an arsonist lights the match, it's hard not to notice that others stored the gasoline near the woodpile.

Good can come from tragedy. Perhaps the attempted assassination can be a pivot point that returns us to a saner path. The map there is remarkably clear: embracing 10 touchstones that can unite us as Americans.

1. No American elected official is anything like Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Claiming otherwise denigrates the tens of millions killed by those tyrants. And making these ridiculous comparisons exposes a lack of understanding of the constitutional guardrails that protect America from devolving into totalitarianism.

2. Power is shared among thousands of American leaders and whoever sits in the Oval Office is just one of them. If your candidate loses, be patient. Like a bus, another president will come along soon enough.

3. Breaking the law is always worse than saying mean things or holding controversial beliefs. In a republic, our elected policymakers decide what actions are bad enough to warrant prison. Everything else is just discourse.

4. Calling someone a name won't bring about the change you seek. It can cause ideological adversaries—and even allies—to write you off as unwilling to engage responsibly.

5. Your feelings aren't all that important. Neither are mine. Feelings change; facts don't. On any given topic there's only one truth but there are countless opinions. Know the difference.

6. Freedom of speech is meant to protect unpopular opinions, because a protestor carrying an "I love puppies" sign will never be arrested. When you set out to protect only the views you agree with, you'll be the most shocked of all when you're subsequently silenced.

7. Respect for the rule of law is non-negotiable. Our justice system must remain impartial, regardless of status or influence. That means that people attacking one kind of government building—like the federal courthouse in Portland Oregon—should receive the same level of prosecution and punishment as those who rioted at the Capitol on January 6.

8. Personal responsibility is foundational to a thriving republic. Everyone must be accountable for his or her actions and decisions, fostering a culture of integrity and self-reliance. There's no such thing as group culpability or group rights. The Declaration of Independence reminded us that our rights come from God, not because we're Americans, but because we're individuals made in his image.

9. Community cohesion is vital for societal stability. We don't always have to see eye to eye as long as we're looking in the same direction.

10. We're called to pray for both Joe Biden and Donald Trump and all our fellow Americans. Those who aren't the praying sort should release feelings of hatred for the opposition, if only in the hope that others will follow suit.

Ben Franklin famously remarked that the founders gave their countrymen a republic—if they could keep it. Given how divided and prone to violence many of us are, we aren't keeping it well.

It's a hot summer of political anger, but it doesn't have to be 1968.

So here's my hope: Historians of the 22nd century will cite the attempt to assassinate the front runner in the 2024 presidential election as the wake-up call that brought Americans straight up out of their twisted hotbed of political division and into a brighter morning of national unity.

Townhall: People Who Corruptly Conceal the Disability of the Leader of the Free World Commit a Soft Form of Treason →

By Mark R. Weaver

Joe Biden’s borderline catatonic debate performance appears to have surprised most Americans. Yet news outlets are finally admitting that those closest to him have known all along that, while many elderly people have “senior moments,” the 82-year-old Biden experiences full blown senior hours.

We’re now feeling the storm surge of anonymous aides who are channeling their faux shock that -- like the tale where everyone knew but kept silent that the emperor had no clothes -- the American president has no clue.

Prior to the debate debacle, only a few Biden confidantes anonymously spoke to the press about the president’s failing faculties. The public line was much different -- Nancy Pelosi swore that Biden was “very sharp,” his national co-chair dismissed questions about presidential proficiency as a “bucket of B.S.,” and MSNBC loudmouth Joe Scarborough claimed – with a straight face – that Biden is “better than he’s ever been intellectually, analytically.”

The Biden family knows more about it than anyone else. Yet they’re blaming the makeup artist, the moderators, and the camera operators for the president’s disastrous debate performance. Puppeteers never like it when the audience can spot the strings. 

No wonder Team Biden is fighting an all-out legal war to hide the recording of Biden’s interview with federal investigators. That audio would amplify why Biden’s own Justice Department determined that the president likely committed “a serious felony” by mishandling classified documents, but that a jury would likely look the other way since Biden is an elderly man with a poor memory. 

While some Democrats anxiously debate whether to replace their nominee, there’s a more fundamental question at hand: what obligation do those in the inner circle have to alert their countrymen to a deeply impaired commander in chief?

During Donald Trump’s presidency, there was no credible argument that he suffered from cognitive deficiencies, but some political opponents vexed by his blunt and unpredictable style put forth the notion that the 25th Amendment process of unseating a president should be instituted. Yet frustration with a president’s political tactics or objectives is not why the Constitution was amended in that way.

The amendment was ratified after dark chapters of history were exposed, revealing a weak plank in the foundation of presidential power. Edith Wilson secretly took executive actions while husband President Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke. A phalanx of FDR aides were mum about the president’s slow spiral into death. And President Kennedy’s team hid the president’s use of a dozen different drugs – including an antipsychotic – while projecting a false image of a young and vigorous chief executive.

That brings us back to the eye-opening debate. The question of intellectual capability goes directly to the ability of voters to discern whether Biden is fit to serve. For example, when he falsely claimed that no military members died on his watch, was he lying as he has so many times before or did his Swiss cheese memory simply not recall the 13 heroes killed when he ordered the reckless withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan?

Transparency in government leads to greater trust. At a time when polling shows trust in government is near an all-time low, those who work for and with a president must not concoct a false veneer of presidential competence. 

How to achieve this goal? The strongest check on such deception is at the ballot box. Voters – the shareholders of the republic -- ought to punish the political party that covers for the misdeeds or incompetency of a president. We saw that in the post-Watergate congressional elections of 1974.

To accomplish that, Americans need information. Congress should demand that the White House release all internal emails and communications that discuss concerns about the president’s competency.

When top White House aides leave government, they often write tell-all books offering a behind the scenes glimpse of presidential doings. Accounts written by Biden appointees will likely share details of a president whose limited cognitive function requires comically short business days, nearly 40% of his term on vacation and away from the White House, and the ever-present hovering of his wife to guide him away from sharp objects and tripping hazards. Yet these confidantes owe us those hard truths now.

Which leads to another, bolder solution. Hold those who covered up Biden’s incapabilities responsible in the free market. I would never propose the despicable, Soviet-style delisting of people advanced against those who served in the Trump administration or supported his campaign efforts. A good old fashioned cold shoulder is a better approach. 

Transparency in government leads to greater trust. At a time when polling shows trust in government is near an all-time low, those who work for and with a president must not concoct a false veneer of presidential competence. 

How to achieve this goal? The strongest check on such deception is at the ballot box. Voters – the shareholders of the republic -- ought to punish the political party that covers for the misdeeds or incompetency of a president. We saw that in the post-Watergate congressional elections of 1974.

To accomplish that, Americans need information. Congress should demand that the White House release all internal emails and communications that discuss concerns about the president’s competency.

When top White House aides leave government, they often write tell-all books offering a behind the scenes glimpse of presidential doings. Accounts written by Biden appointees will likely share details of a president whose limited cognitive function requires comically short business days, nearly 40% of his term on vacation and away from the White House, and the ever-present hovering of his wife to guide him away from sharp objects and tripping hazards. Yet these confidantes owe us those hard truths now.

Which leads to another, bolder solution. Hold those who covered up Biden’s incapabilities responsible in the free market. I would never propose the despicable, Soviet-style delisting of people advanced against those who served in the Trump administration or supported his campaign efforts. A good old fashioned cold shoulder is a better approach. 

Newsweek: A Supreme Court Decision Right for Trump and for the Ages →

BY MARK R. WEAVER

In the Supreme Court decision about immunity, who really won? The answer is obvious: the doctrine of separation of powers. The high court's common sense holding simply extended the same legal protection to presidents that is already enjoyed by legislators and jurists.

It's well settled in law that those in the judicial and legislative branches have significant immunity from lawsuits or prosecutions based on their official actions. Indeed, the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, shields members of Congress from legal harassment or even criminal prosecution based on things they do as part of their legislative responsibilities. This deters the executive branch from using sham or vituperative legal process to achieve political results. Judges have their own brand of immunity, for the same reason.

Like a moat surrounding a government fortress, immunity from legal liability deters the most common assaults of those with ill intent. This ultimately protects every American since, in the case of civil lawsuits, taxpayers ultimately bear the money damages paid by the government. In the case of criminal prosecutions of current or former government officials, some form of immunity is necessary to shield our leaders from political interference by other government actors with partisan or devious motives.

This week's decision would have been met with a legal "well, duh," had it been made prior to our entire political discourse revolving around ardent love or desperate hatred of a single political player. Nonetheless, in the wake of this decision, former President Donald Trump's foes are fulminating, and his supporters are cheering.

But the constitutional long view encourages everyone to calm down and sip a cool drink.

The Supreme Court simply concluded that immunity for a president extends to actions presidents do to advance their duties of office. While this is a long list, the majority opinion acknowledged that a president could face criminal liability for unofficial acts wholly unrelated to the presidency.

For all the doom and gloom in the dissent, the Supreme Court merely stated the obvious and sent the case back to the district court, instructing it to weigh the facts and evidence to determine if Trump's acts in the case were official or unofficial in his role as president. If that means he will avoid prosecution in the mistake-ridden case against him in the District of Columbia, that's just the way the separation of powers ball bounces.

Despite the partisan 6-3 split, the majority determined that presidential immunity is narrower than what Trump claimed and broader than what President Joe Biden's Justice Department argued. This result makes sense to most legal scholars who aren't wearing a red or blue jersey underneath their natty political TV show attire.

The court ruled that, when any president acts within his official authority, "Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President's actions." Biden should cheer this ruling because, when he leaves office, he will enjoy the same protection from legal actions taken against his many breaches of the Constitution.

In constitutional law, the presidency and Congress are called the "political branches" because voters decide who serves within them. The judiciary, replete with judges who essentially have lifetime tenure, was designed to be far less political. This allows its decisions to be viewed through a different lens than the initiatives put forth by those who grub for votes and fervently pour through public opinion polls praying for public acclaim and vindication.

And—speaking of the political theater kids—cue the overheated and irresponsible attacks on the court. Within a few hours of the decision, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Democrat in Congress, called the Supreme Court a "MAGA" court. Biden has launched similar petulant attacks on the court when he doesn't get what he wants. Luckily, the founders anticipated such weasel antics.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton pointed out that the Supreme Court is vulnerable to attack and—ironically, given Biden's intimidation tactics—actually relies on the president to defend its work. He said the high court "has no influence over either the sword or the purse ... and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

Today's ruling was simply the Supreme Court continuing to uphold its constitutional role. The Supreme Court should be admired for defending that role, despite the braying of political bullies.

This case won't end the lawfare effort to defeat Trump in forums other than a national election, but it will, as Justice Neil Gorsuch predicted, speak to the ages. And that's important, while this flows against the frothing rapids of the current political maelstrom, soon enough, neither Trump nor Biden will be on the political stage. New leaders will occupy the Oval Office and this decision will still stand.

Newsweek: The Jury Gave Hunter Biden the Tough Love Joe Biden Never Could →

BY MARK R. WEAVER

Someone finally held Hunter Biden accountable. All along, it should have been his father. But a jury had to do it.

No one can fault Joe Biden for pouring affection on his children after the tragic car accident that took his wife and daughter. And when eldest son Beau died of cancer, most of the President's fatherly love was projected into Hunter.

Here's the problem: Unconditional affirming—which Joe Biden does to Hunter, whom he calls "the smartest man he knows"—becomes enabling. Loving your child is an admirable trait, of course, but in those times of struggle, some parents wisely choose tough love.

Addicts need that to help them through their substance abuse. But Joe Biden ran in the opposite direction, often seeking to shield Hunter from the natural results of his bad choices. That's not tough love; it's parental butt covering. The president is even prone to lashing out when the public dares ask why Hunter gets special treatment.

Joe largely sees Hunter as the beloved son who can do no wrong. The Delaware jury, plucked from the most Biden-friendly place in the universe, saw Hunter differently: They saw someone who flaunted federal gun law. And they held Hunter accountable.

Call it the judicial brand of tough love.

The facts were as obvious as the white in cocaine: This prodigal son was an admitted drug addictcharged with illegally obtaining a firearm by lying on the form required to make the purchase. Hunter, like me, is an attorney, and he knew what the language on the form means. I've filled out that same form numerous times, and the warnings to be truthful are littered across the document.

But the President wanted a different outcome for his son, which is hypocritical, given that Joe Biden signed the stricter law that toughens the penalties; it's now punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

But when it comes to Hunter, the President doesn't think the rules should apply. He'll claim otherwise, but his actions tell a different tale. For years, it's been major league enabling of a son of privilege.

That enabling grows even worse when you're a United States senator, vice president, and president. Then it becomes corruption. Hunter was discharged from the Navy Reservce for using cocaine. Hunter needed a soft landing. Cue dad, Vice President of the United States. Most people seeking to do business with China would need to buy a plane ticket to go. But Joe Biden invited Hunter to go along on Air Force 2. Taxpayers paid for the ultimate in first class travel, and Hunter took advantage of the imprimatur of American government credibility. Where Joe goes, Hunter tags along—and rakes in millions in return for the Biden brand. And where Hunter goes, Joe helps clean up the mess.

Joe's butt covering goes so deep that the Biden campaign conspired to downplay evidence on Hunter's discarded laptop by calling it—falsely, as we now know—a conspiracy. No apology or retraction from those who used it to help win the 2020 election.

The 12-step program of Narcotics Anonymous calls for the addict to take inventory, confess, and make amends. Hunter Biden still hasn't displayed any interest in that. Accountability is for the little people.

Hunter holding himself accountable would have involved him pleading guilty to the charge and using a local Wilmington attorney to help him through the procedure (I went to law school in Wilmington—there are plenty of good attorneys there). Instead, he and his family hired a highly paid Hollywood fixer lawyer to handle the matter. The first lady, Hunter's stepmom, left Normandy and the 80th anniversary of D-Day so she could sit front and center in the courtroom, reminding the Delaware jury that the defendant is very well connected.

All this comes after Biden's Justice Department tried to make a sweetheart deal that would have seen Hunter avoid all accountability for his alleged misdeeds. And let's not forget that Hunter still faces another trial on tax evasion later this year.

The defense argument in the gun case was astounding. They wanted the jury to believe that he was drug free and answered honestly on the ATF form during the very narrow window he owned the gun. Years and years of sustained drug use, despite trips to recovery, but somehow he managed to get clean for exactly the period when he purchased the gun?

Unlike Hunter at a crack house, jurors weren't buying it. In the end, it took a jury to deliver the tough love Joe Biden never could.

Newsweek: The Founding Fathers Couldn't Have Foreseen Trump—But They Still Immunized Him →

BY MARK R. WEAVER

Call it a constitutional irony that, on the very day the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the limits on the power of a partisan prosecutor to weaponize criminal statutes to imprison a president, a prosecutor in New York was in a courtroom seeking to imprison the former and perhaps next president. In this era of high speed lawfare and road rage level partisanship, strong guardrails are needed.

If a president slips out of the White House and kills someone he's mad at, the law already allows him to be criminally prosecuted and politically impeached. The tougher question, which is being hotly debated in the Supreme Court this week, is this: When a president carries out his official duties, can he be prosecuted for that?

We know for sure he can't be sued for it.

In 1972, after former President Richard Nixon faced civil lawsuits related to his official actions taken in office, the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald held that, due to the special nature of the president's responsibilities, presidents "require absolute exemption from liability."

The Nixon case provided the reason why the same protection must extend to criminal liability for official acts: "Absolute immunity is appropriate when the threat of liability may bias the decisionmaker in ways that are adverse to the public interest."

That word "absolute" is a rarity in constitutional law. Courts typically prefer to paint jurisprudential art with the smallest of brushes, even when broader strokes might evoke a bolder notion. But in this instance, the Court granted the widest possible liability protections, so a president wouldn't be distracted from the important duties of office.

If a threat of being ordered to pay money for a civil claim is a deterrent enough to distract a president from doing the work of the executive branch, the threat of being sent to prison is a dinosaur-sized distraction.

The problem is that partisans seek to use any available tool to attack an opponent without realizing that the tool might someday get turned on them. Squirting your neighbor with a hose is a hoot until she gets out her pressure washer.

Let's look a few decades down the road. A president who you strongly support is in office, advancing all the policies you support. Yay! But the president, on a swing through a state controlled by the opposing party, takes a military call where he authorizes a drone strike in a foreign land. Because the president acted too quickly, the targeting is faulty, and an innocent U.S. citizen is killed. A local prosecutor running in a primary election for state attorney general charges the president with negligent homicide and pushes for a prison sentence. Boo! Suddenly, you're bellowing for some protection for the president. But the other party denies such a shield exists.

If you think this scenario is far-fetched, either you haven't kept up with the news or you'd make a lousy weather forecaster.

You might also believe this is a modern concern. Not so. Early America called these groups "factions." In Washington's Farewell Address, he warned about the dangers of "domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities."

You don't say.

James Madison, writing in Federalist Number 43, gave a similar warning about the never-ending cycles of political retribution as the framers wrote the impeachment clause in the U.S. Constitution. He wanted to avoid cycles of political revenge that "have been the great engines by which violent factions ... have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other."

Fast forward 235 years, and we see the things that Washington and Madison were worried about playing out in real time in a New York court room.

But one need not even mention Donald Trump's presidency to illustrate precisely why the Founding Fathers designated impeachment as their ultimate punishment for a president. Criminal charges as a political tool to neutralize and distract the Commander in Chief worried the founding fathers. Their Constitution protects official presidential actions from both civil and criminal prosecution. But they were wise enough to leave checks and balances on that broad grant of power. Should a president ever be impeached and convicted in the Senate, he would forfeit his office but also be stripped of that immunity and be liable to legal action.

When law becomes a weapon of political revenge, it's our democracy that takes the fatal blow. Worse yet, it doesn't uphold justice—it undermines it.

Newsweek: The Supreme Court Has Restored Order in a Chaotic Time. Lincoln Would Be Proud →

BY MARK R. WEAVER

Sometimes unanimity comes with an asterisk. Such is the case of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisionkeeping Donald Trump on the ballot in Colorado and every other state that might seek to invalidate his candidacy.

This was logic and reason extinguishing hysteria and fallacy. And it came when America needed it most. But it wasn't the first time we've seen this play.

When Richard Nixon sought to twist the law to his own political purpose, a unanimous Supreme Courtstopped him. When modern Nixonian political operators used similar tactics to deprive roughly half the country of their preferred candidate, Donald Trump, a similar judicial rebuke was in order. And it came—with a subtle footnote.

The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents would perhaps prefer to continue receiving invitations to the finest Washington affairs. So even as the Constitution impelled them to join the inescapable conclusion of the majority, they decided to join the crowd but stand just a few feet to the left. By concurring in the final result but not entirely in its underlying reasoning, the trio gave the ruling a slim shadow of disunion. Such clumsy footwork is predictable even as it disappoints.

At the heart of this issue was the interpretation of the Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The question is: Who decides the ground rules for use of the Disqualification Clause—the states or Congress?

The shrillest voices aligned against Trump contorted their legal arguments to claim that every state should be able to determine, on its own unstated and shifting terms, what the American founders meant by "insurrection" and giving "aid or comfort" to our enemies as outlined in the clause. They fancied that seething contempt toward a political candidate whom most of their constituents abhor is enough for nearly any blue state functionary to toss Donald Trump from the ballot.

The Supreme Court, both in oral argument and in its opinion, strongly disagreed. The high court forestalled what could have been serious constitutional confusion with the attendant partisan polemics. The opinion, pointing to the unavoidable observation that Colorado's action was little more than election interference dressed in low legal sophistry, worried that it could "nullify the votes of millions and change the election result."

What Colorado and others like Maine and Illinois sought was politics by less noble means. Indeed, the lead attorney advancing the case in the high court made more of a political stump speech than a legal argument and was chastised by Justice Gorsuch for it. If that advocate's position had been upheld, every future presidential election would hold the potential for partisan scheming to dig up the most plausible evidence that an opposing party's candidate was an insurrectionist or had given aid to the enemy through some political rhetoric or executive action. Many red states would hip check Democrat contenders from the ballot and their blue counterparts would do the same.

But the high court said, convincingly, "Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos."

The opinion concludes with a sentence that has a familiar ring. When the justices declared "the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand," they evoked the spirit of Abraham Lincoln. A few blocks west of the Supreme Court building, in the Lincoln Memorial, a similar sentiment is etched in granite. During a time of great national tumult, when certain states sought national outcomes different than others and a deep national divide was brewing, Mr. Lincoln warned against the dangers of domestic dissension, declaring, "A house divided against itself, cannot stand." This biblical notion was apt then and now.

In our collective American dictionary, federalism is a synonym for order. This decision brings it.

Trump's opponents should cease their lamentations and lawfare and focus their energies on the venerable arena where final decisions are made—the presidential election.

Newsweek: By Modern Standards, Biden Should Be Impeached →

BY MARK R. WEAVER

Based on modern legislative interpretations of impeachable conduct, the U.S. House of Representatives has enough evidence to impeach President Joe Biden. "Show me the treason, high crime, or misdemeanor" some will shout. Here's my reply: Go get elected to the House, where you and your colleagues alone decide what evidence meets that standard.

The Constitution grants the House the sole power to impeach. This authority, like the queen's exclusive ability to move diagonally, vertically, and horizontally along a chessboard, is not shared. Just as a queen's move is not constrained by the paths of other pieces, the House's decision to impeach isn't subject to review by other government actors. And the House exercises considerable judgement in defining the founders' intentionally vague phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Gerald Ford, one of the few Americans to ever hold the position of top congressional leader and president, once observed, "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." That notion is bipartisan. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, in the first Trump impeachment, expressly stated that "impeachment is part of democratic governance."

Lest you think that such broad congressional power is dangerous, the founding fathers disagreed. While debating impeachment powers, Constitutional Convention delegate Elbridge Gerry noted that a good president "will not fear them [and] a bad one ought to be kept in fear of them."

In fact, during the ratification debate, James Iredell, who would become one of our first Supreme CourtJustices, said, "If the President does a single act by which the people are prejudiced, he is punishable ... and impeachable."

While the founding fathers did think impeachment would be rare, the modern trend of endless partisan whack-a-mole has proved their predictions wrong. Indeed, heated partisan disagreement fueled all four presidential impeachments.

In fact, during the ratification debate, James Iredell, who would become one of our first Supreme CourtJustices, said, "If the President does a single act by which the people are prejudiced, he is punishable ... and impeachable."

While the founding fathers did think impeachment would be rare, the modern trend of endless partisan whack-a-mole has proved their predictions wrong. Indeed, heated partisan disagreement fueled all four presidential impeachments.

Biden's own Justice Department intentionally allowed the statute of limitations for potential crimes in Hunter's Ukraine dealings to lapse. Biden prosecutors also refused to bring charges against Hunter for violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act that are so obvious a mildly skilled law student could prosecute them.

Career IRS agents who blew the whistle on Hunter's tax flimflam have had their credibility vindicated in his recent indictment. Curiously, the Biden prosecutors on that case spent more time detailing the salacious spending rather than the millions funneled to the Biden family. And the creampuff plea deal engineered by Biden's Justice Department to allow the First Son to skate would've taken effect but for the watchful eye of a federal judge.

But it's not just Joe's dealings with Hunter that deserve examination. Court records show that the president's brother James, who shuffled large checks to brother Joe, told business connections that the Biden name opened government doors for Middle East interests and even Communist China.

Richard Nixon was never charged with a crime or impeached but he was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the crimes of others. Despite his provable lies to the contrary, Joe Biden was involved with his son Hunter's foreign influence business. Whether that makes him a co-conspirator in Hunter's crimes is a ripe area for congressional scrutiny.

The most active architect of the Constitution, James Madison, described the type of behaviors that could trigger impeachment as "incapacity, negligence or perfidy." Impeachment served as a safeguard, Madison said, against betrayal of "his trust to foreign powers." Ukraine and China leap to mind.

With these facts in hand, maintaining the partisan claim of "no evidence" is like denying the daylight at dawn. Yes, things were only dimly seen for a while, but the sunlit scrutiny of hearings will almost certainly cast an undeniable beam on this conclusion: It's time to impeach Joe Biden.

Newsweek: Sorry, It's Not Cancel Culture When People Supporting Mass Murder Get Fired →

BY MARK R. WEAVER

Most law students like to argue. But there are some who, after cheering recent atrocities by Hamas terrorists, argued themselves out of a job. As proof that irony is taught in law school even though it's not a listed course, one law student claimed that Israel "bears the full responsibility" for the butchery of Israeli women and children but now seems unwilling to take responsibility for her own statement. So a law firm did it for her and revoked her job offer.

A few cranks will claim this is the latest example of cancel culture. But that's like calling a consumer's brand preference a boycott. Cancel culture, in its more trivial form, typically involves shaming individuals into apology for actions or opinions deemed controversial but not particularly harmful. We can all imagine what types of Halloween costume you might wear later this month that would get you cancelled, even as no one is physically hurt by your selection. When deployed frivolously, canceling is counterproductive and a form of bullying. It often focuses on personal or historical wrongs and subjective moralities, drawing lines that are not universally accepted.

That's not what happened here.

Publicly praising the beheading of infants and rape and murder of innocents isn't a quibble about a costume or a poorly worded Facebook post. It's a resignation letter from civil society. It's legal to send that letter and it's appropriate for society to accept it.

Those of us who are paying attention to modern trends aren't surprised that this folly arose from a university setting. All too often, campus debates look less like an American townhall and more like a Roman Coliseum. Attendees are drawn to the events not for love for dialogue and discernment but a lust for anger and agitation.

All of my law school debates were civil, even when heated. Yet such decorum has become a quaint notion of the past, to be filed away in the same dusty cabinet as chivalry and being a good neighbor. Now, we are just as likely to wander down the quad and come upon arguments wielded as weapons with ferocious intensity. Empathy, nuance, and the humanity of discourse are casualties in this theatrical display of adversarial triumphalism. The jousters justify their caustic behavior as "juice worth the squeeze" without a hint of perspective that this has been the argument of dictators in every age.

Some of these law students share opinions about Hamas terrorists that are out of step with world opinion and out of sync with the facts. But it's not because they're busy studying torts and civil procedure; others in their generation are similarly ill-informed. Law students ought to have more logic behind their views.

I taught law school for two decades and have practiced for longer than that and I must spill this secret: There's a briefcase full of nonsense behind much of what's taught to young attorneys, but wiser minds become cooler heads and moderation and common sense prevail. Many of these law students haven't yet learned that being a lawyer is more than being a zealous advocate. Zeal is easy. Discretion is hard. And the ethical obligations of attorneys require us to act with professionalism in a way that will preserve the integrity of the justice system.

All law students have a First Amendment right to express their views publicly, yet this right exists side by side with moral considerations about their own—and society's—obligations. Just as one has the right to speak out, others have the right to associate or dissociate based on the expressed views. For example, a man cheering on a serial rapist by bearing a sign of support outside a courthouse where that rapist is being sentenced is exercising his right to free speech. However, an organization advocating for sexual assault victims possesses an equally valid right, and arguably a moral duty, to reject that man's application for employment.

A law firm's decision to withdraw job offers from law students who openly support acts of terrorism is a legitimate exercise of the firm's right to free association. Their actions are not merely reactions to unpopular opinions but a stand against associating with viewpoints that glorify terrorism. It's about making a conscious choice not to work with individuals whose values fundamentally conflict with universally accepted moral principles and the mission of that employer.

Upholding such distinctions supports a balanced approach where free speech rights are weighed in tandem with free association. And perhaps the most important law school lesson from this incident is that those who seek to advocate for justice must distinguish between the right to speak and the right to escape consequence.

Newsweek: The Hunter Biden Sweetheart Deal Endangers Us All. Every Criminal Is Going to Ask for It →

BY MARK R. WEAVER

Lady Justice is blindfolded, but when certain people show up for court, she peeks. What else could explain Hunter Biden's unusually generous deal with the prosecutors who work for his father? They whittled down $1.2 million worth of tax fraud to two misdemeanors, a cream puff of a plea bargain, and then made Hunter's gun crime disappear in an impressive, albeit feckless, feat of prosecution.

But this isn't just proof of political bias in the justice system. The Hunter Biden sweetheart deal endangers us all, for the simple reason that every criminal going forward is now going to ask for it.

The gun crimes Hunter ducked are serious federal felonies. One is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and the other can incarcerate violators for up to five years. Prosecutors often deal with minor crimes by allowing an otherwise repentant first offender a way to avoid a criminal record, a process called diversion. But in this case, it's diverting the cause of justice. Worse yet, the Biden Justice Department's kid glove treatment diverts attention from the growing evidence that suggests the President's kid was involved in some adult level foreign corruption.

Hunter will essentially go unpunished for the serious federal felony of possessing a gun while being addicted to illegal drugs. No prison sentence, no probation officer to check up on him, and no criminal record for the charge.

If your cousin had lied while buying a gun and then held on to it while higher than a Chinese spy balloon, would he have been treated this way? You know the answer. But can he now demand to be treated this way? You bet.

Contrary to what the ghouls on MSNBC will tell you, countless people have been dealt with harshly for this crime. Even a cursory internet search finds three people who lied on gun forms who were each given prison sentences of five years. Others were sentenced to 32 months, 30 months, and 18 months. Aside from their crimes, these ordinary people had just one thing in common: They didn't have a father in the White House.

As a prosecutor who has sent people to prison, I have multiple guns, issued by my agency and purchased on my own. And every time I fill out the detailed forms to acquire a firearm, there are bold warnings that providing false information is a federal felony. Are these admonitions now hollow?

The message to gun buyers going forward seems obvious: Lying to purchase your new AR-15 is fine and dandy with the feds—just ask for the Hunter Biden special! Or, more likely, people will presume that, if you're special enough, you can lie and not get prosecuted.

When Joe Biden was caught on a hot mic saying "no one f—s with a Biden," his federal prosecutors heard him loud and clear. He may claim he had nothing to do with this deal but, as I found out when I worked at the Department of Justice, every action taken by the DOJ is imbued with authority only the presidentpossesses.

This arrogance of power undermines the social contract that binds us. We're all parties to this agreement. I'll follow the law if you do. And those who don't get punished—no matter what their last name is.

When that contract is repeatedly breached, people become less likely to comply with laws that require truthful self-disclose in gun sales. And when mentally unstable or seriously addicted people get guns, really bad things can happen.

Ironically, while Hunter was consuming drugs like a shopaholic on Black Friday, his dad was Vice President, and in that role, the elder Biden called for more aggressive federal prosecutions of people who lie on gun registration forms.

The Trump classified document drama and its comparisons to Hillary Clinton's counterpart have already amplified the worry that our legal system has a double standard. Public opinion polling shows 61 percent of all Americans have some concern that the charges against Trump are politically motivated. Add to that bonfire the fuel of the Hunter Biden blue light special deal and the flames of outrage will burn higher.

It's bad enough that Hunter Biden's face could soon replace the mustachioed man on Monopoly's "get out of jail free" card. It's worse that the streets may soon be teeming with criminals demanding the same treatment. The only way for Democrats to avoid the stain of their own hypocrisy will be to grant it.