Laura Ainsworth, Staff Writer

From Jan:

Good article. One thing I have actually thought about is that Joe is such a liability to the party because of his son, Hunter, and their actions in the Ukraine. Honestly, what I think is a possibility is that the DNC will actually work toward bringing Joe down themselves, once he gets the nomination. Using this scenario as an excuse to get him out and get someone who they really would like to get in there; i.e., Michelle Obama or someone with that kind of star power.

From Laura:

Thanks for writing, Jan. I chose not to venture into the Ukraine/Hunter Biden issue because the wheels of justice turn sooooo slowly, it’s hard to know how much of a factor this will become to Democrat voters (who, lest we forget, always forgive their own) before the convention and/or the election. But it certainly could create more scenarios, and you're right: it’s one more way to get him replaced at some point. The Dems surely have even more contingency plans in case Durham delivers his report.

RELATED READING: Ainsworth: With Biden winning, watch what Michelle O does now

Their move will depend on the timing of that report. Here’s just one of several possibilities: Biden picks Michelle as running mate; with her popularity, they win; before inauguration (it can't be after, because Barr would have been fired on Day 1 and the investigation stopped), Durham report finally comes out and shows criminality and cover-up; Biden relinquishes office in lieu of impeachment (a la Nixon) “for the good of the country”; Michelle assumes Presidency. The Obama machine gets back in.

Or, the report comes out sooner, before November, with Biden possibly having to step away from his nomination before the election. But in that case, too, Michelle steps in and if she wins, the result is the same: the Obama machine gets back in.

By the way, the Senate has just started its own investigation into Burisma and Hunter Biden, with Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson vowing to force a vote on the first subpoena as soon as next week. From their end, Ukraine is also investigating.

https://news.yahoo.com/ron-johnson-claims-burisma-linked-143831493.html

Right now, the Democrats –- with help from Mitt Romney, who might as well be one –- are trying to taint the Senate investigation as purely political. They will do everything possible to stall the process and keep old Joe viable at least until the convention and the naming of Michelle as his running mate. The media will help them by continuing to downplay Biden’s mental deterioration and ignoring any damaging developments in the Ukraine scandal.

From Lorna:

Comment/question: Would she qualify? I have read where she doesn't have the 14-year citizenship requirement because of her tax status. Her parents filed her out of country for education benefits and she filed out of country while she was in college. I wish I could recall where I read this but I remember looking and if true, she wouldn't be eligible until 2021.

From Laura:

Very interesting question! This may have been what you read…

https://newinformation.today/2017/03/michelle-obama-just-tried-to-register-to-run-for-president-but-was-denied/

First, on counting the number of years: the Constitution is vague on whether the 14 years need to be consecutive or cumulative. But there is precedent for the “cumulative” argument: the presidency of Herbert Hoover. Hoover was elected in 1928 and inaugurated in 1929. As USConstitution explains, if the “consecutive” argument were correct, Hoover would’ve had to live in the U.S. since March of 1915. But he’d lived in London for a time during that period. In fact, the Court Directory of London lists a London address for him from 1910 to 1917. So that precedent dispenses with the “consecutive” interpretation and leaves us with the “cumulative.”

https://usconstitution.net/constfaq_q19.html

And what exactly does “residence” entail? The early Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said this: “by ‘residence,’ in the Constitution, [it] is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicile within the United States.”

I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem that this requirement is flexible enough for Michelle to get around it. Obviously, she was living here, regardless of what her sneaky tax returns say, and she would be able to prove she was. The founders included the residency requirement to give the candidate a tangible tie to this country, and she would argue that she absolutely has that, fulfilling the founders’ intent.

It should be noted for the purposes of our discussion that the 12th Amendment made the same qualifications for President apply to the Vice President.

https://www.thoughtco.com/requirements-to-serve-as-president-3322199

You’ll recall there were challenges to Barack Obama’s candidacy as well, his having to do with whether or not he was born in the United States and also –- the one I still puzzle over –- whether his American citizenship was renounced when he was signed up to attend a Muslim school in Indonesia as a boy.

https://observer.com/2007/01/actually-obama-did-go-to-a-madrasah/

As far as I know, we have NEVER been provided the paperwork on this, nor that of much of Obama’s official life, not even his college transcripts or writings while in school –- which is pretty curious for an editor of the Harvard Law Review. But you’ll notice he got to run, and serve, as President for two terms despite the murkiness concerning his citizenship and background. I doubt that any “residence” challenge to Michelle’s candidacy would stop her.

While researching the answer to this question, I came upon a piece in AMERICAN THINKER from April of last year that mentions what the great Rush Limbaugh was saying then about the Obamas trying to get back into the White House. Seems I’m in good company.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/is_michelle_obama_trying_to_run_for_president_with_her_knock_on_divorced_dads_us_cities.html

Rush speculated then that Michelle wouldn’t throw her hat into the ring unless it was a virtual certainty that she would win. I agree, but this sort of “backdoor” way into the White House via Biden’s candidacy is different. She wouldn’t be getting in as a traditional candidate.

https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/limbaugh-michelle-obama-wont-run-for-president-if/

In July of last year, Rush explained what her motivation for running would be; namely, preserving as much of the “Obama legacy” as possible. Oh, goody.

https://thehornnews.com/report-michelle-obama-preparing-2020-presidential-run/

But here’s a different viewpoint posted August 26 of last year at AMERICAN SPECTATOR. David Catron believes that although Michelle is the Most Admired Woman in the world and all that, even she would have a tough slog running against President Trump, who would give her a hard time about some atrocious things she’s said over the years. (Note: Trump had better be careful how he treats her, though, or that could backfire.) I still say much has happened since last August --- the implosion of the Democrat lineup and, especially, the further deterioration of Biden --- to make a Michelle run likely, either as a last-minute substitute for him or as #2 on the ticket with him, as he quietly fades away.

https://spectator.org/why-michelle-obama-wont-run-in-2020/

Mike Huckabee

And now, another prominent Democrat who made violent threats against people she disagreed with, then tried to weasel out of taking responsibility or even apologizing...

Denver City Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca retweeted a tweet in which someone said, "For the record, if I do get the coronavirus, I'm attending every MAGA rally I can." CdeBaca added some laughing and “OK” emojis and “#solidarity Yaaaas!!”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/03/no_apologies_from_denver_council_member_who_endorsed_spreading_coronavirus_at_trump_rallies.html

I’m pleased to report that she was hit with a wave of complaints about her endorsement not only of spreading the coronavirus, but of using it to try to sicken and even kill people just because she disagrees with their politics (but don’t worry: today’s leftists only admire socialist nations’ literacy programs and free health care, not the authoritarianism!)

Following the Schumer playbook to the letter, CdeBaca refused to apologize and instead sent out a spokesperson to try to gaslight the public and deflect the justifiable outrage over her own actions onto the people who criticized her. Here’s her statement:

"Councilwoman CdeBaca made a sarcastic tweet on Twitter to call attention to the Trump administration's downplaying of the Coronavirus outbreak as a 'hoax' no more dangerous than the common flu. Rather than conservative outlets making a four-day-old Tweet their focus on Super Tuesday, they should focus their energy on demanding a competent Federal response to this public health crisis instead."

Okay, you want a response from a conservative? Here’s my response:

1. President Trump is being praised by actual medical authorities for taking swift action that’s helped to delay and contain the coronavirus in the US, actions that met initial resistance from liberals such as (ta-da!) Chuck Schumer, who accused him of a “war on immigrants” for blocking people from entering the US from China.

2. Trump didn’t say the coronavirus was a “hoax,” he said the claim that he wasn’t taking action on it was a hoax. The councilwoman claimed she was calling attention to a hoax when she was actually perpetuating a hoax to dodge responsibility for her own actions.

3. That tweet wasn’t “sarcasm,” it was a clear endorsement of biological warfare against political opponents, in utter disregard of the general health of the US population and human decency in general.

4. If Denver voters reelect this person, it will be convincing evidence that the city has way too many marijuana dispensaries.

Mike Huckabee

This would be an excellent day for an update on my never-ending series of replies to that online commenter who claimed that most politically-motivated threats and violence come from the right against those on the left. If you read the news for a living, surely you must recognize that that’s like claiming that rain falls upward.

Today, I have two examples of threats from the left, and not just from anonymous radical nuts working as Bernie Sanders campaign organizers. These are prominent people in allegedly responsible elected positions, one of them a top national figure, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over a Louisiana abortion law that could lead to a revisit of the abortion limits under Roe v. Wade. Here are some details on this possible landmark case:

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/03/04/793499/

Meanwhile, outside the SCOTUS, Schumer (whom I thought had a job to be at during weekday business hours) was addressing a pro-abortion rally crowd and said this:

“I want to tell you, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chief-justice-roberts-rare-rebuke-schumer-calling-comments-kavanaugh-gorsuch-dangerous

That not-so-veiled threat against two sitting Justices (particularly dangerous in a climate in which deranged leftists have already been fired up by irresponsible and incendiary rhetoric to shoot up the Family Research Council’s office and nearly kill Republican Rep. Steve Scalise) led to a rare public rebuke by Chief Justice John Roberts. He wrote, in part:

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/chief-justice-roberts-blasts-schumers-threatening-statements-gorsuch-kavanaugh/

President Trump called for Schumer to pay a stiff price for that outrageous conduct, and a number of other Senators and commentators echoed that, with Sen. Josh Hawley moving to censure Schumer over it. Hawley said he would call on Schumer to apologize, “but we all know he has no shame.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/486050-gop-senator-to-try-to-censure-schumer-over-scotus-remark

As if to prove Hawley’s point, Schumer sent out his spokesman not with an apology but with a load of transparent bull droppings. He said that Justice Roberts was echoing the “right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said. Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these Justices on the court, and a warning that the Justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision."

Okay, let’s go to the Instant Replay!

Chuck Schumer: “I want to tell you, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

So he stood outside the Court and specifically addressed Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch with his threats, but he was really talking to the Senate Republicans who weren't even there? I think we’ve found another Washington Democrat whose ability to think clearly is almost as eroded as Joe Biden’s.

PS - Almost as bad were the attempts by Twitter trolls to defend Schumer by claiming that Trump had threatened Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg. No, he never "threatened" them. He said they should recuse themselves from any cases involving his Administration because they'd publicly revealed their bias against him. Anyone in any court would be justified in asking for a recusal under those circumstances.