We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

• Here’s one of the easiest predictions to make ever: Whereas many presidents who leave office with low approval ratings or poor reputation among scholars often see their reputations and popularity rise years later as historians offer revisions and as more inside details come out (think of Truman, Eisenhower, both Bushes, and even Nixon to some extent), Joe Biden’s reputation has nowhere to go but down further once the details are learned of the massive deception his staff conducted throughout his presidency.

• Sohrab Ahmari is really starting to lose it:

Oh let’s see: Thomas Sowell, Joseph Cropsey, Roger Scruton, Kenneth Minogue, Eric Voegelin, and Dan Mahoney all come to mind in a quick first pass. Then there are all the ex-Marxists who became conservatives or conservative icons, especially Leszek Kolakowski, but also more classical liberal figures such as Raymond Aron or Isaiah Berlin. I wonder how many of these authors Ahmari has ever read?

I see he is already trying to backtrack and backfill when presented with Kolakowski and others on this list:

Of course, your typical “leftist pundit” usually hasn’t read much Marx either, so what’s his point?

• Remember how Trump denied the results of the 2020 election and filed “frivolous” lawsuits and eventually pressured Congress to reject electoral votes from the states, leading to an “insurrection” to reverse the result? Pepperidge Farms remembers, but The Hill apparently does not:

Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now

BY EVAN A. DAVIS AND DAVID M. SCHULTE

The Constitution provides that an oath-breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the plain wording of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” This disability can be removed by a two-thirds vote in each House. . .

Yeah, yeah, the Supreme Court already heard and rejected this argument, noting that Trump was never charged with insurrection (much less convicted), but the authors of this article, both law professors of course, waive this off as meaningless:

[C]ounting the Electoral College votes is a matter uniquely assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under well-settled law this fact deprives the Supreme Court of a voice in the matter, because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question.

John Eastman is facing disbarment for making a novel and unprecedented legal argument; if there’s any consistency in the world, these two lawyers should then face disbarment as well.