Topic category:  Partisan Politics

President Trump looks like one of the two finalists, but President Biden may not make it and whether or not it is best for the United States for him to make it and lose or not make it and be replaced by Michelle Obama for what would be an awesome battle for the soul of America remains to be seen.

Full Disclosure: I support President Trump. I'm not sure President Biden will be the other finals and I hope that he will be.

Why do I support President Trump?

Five years ago, on June 18, 2019, then President Donald Trump answered a letter from my cousin, Laurence Veras, as follows:

"Thank you for taking the time to express your views regarding immigration policy.

"My first duty as President is to keep the American people safe, and that obligation guides my approach to immigration and border security.

"Immigration to the United States is a privilege, not a right. The Federal Government has the responsibility to enforce all laws passed by Congress, to rigorously vet and screen all foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States, and to keep drugs, criminals, and terrorists from entering our country and threatening our citizens.

"Additionally, we must have responsible controls on the future entry of foreign workers to protect jobs and wages for existing United States workers of all backgrounds. I have issued an Executive Order to help accomplish this goal as I promised during the campaign.

"Further, we achieved a record reduction in illegal immigration on the southern border, an effort that requires constant vigilance against a wide array of threats and challenges. We are also taking action to confront unlawful sanctuary city jurisdictions that dangerously shield criminal aliens. Moreover, I continue to press Congress to end the visa lottery and extended-family chain migration, to provide a permanent solution for the status of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and to move forward a merit-based immigration system. Crucial planning and preparations are underway for the border wall, which is necessary to stop the trafficking of drugs, guns, weapons, and people.

"If we continue to enforce our laws and protect our communities. workers and struggling workers, we will reduce our deficit, increase incomes, and make our communities safer for each and every American – both now and in the future."

Bravo, President Trump.

His reelection in 2020 would have been terrific, but, rightly or wrongly, Congress finally declared that Joe Biden would succeed Donald Trump as President of the United States and so he did.

Then Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden had successfully sold the lie that President Trump had to be replaced because he was working with Russia and the Hunter Biden laptop story really was "Russian disinformation" as 50 (actually 51) alleged experts had declared.

The highlight of the 2020 presidential debate was candidate Biden citing that letter of the Gang of 51.

Did Biden "steal" that election?

It depends upon what "steal" means.

Here's one definition: "to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring."

Did President Biden win by trickery in 2020?

Since the FBI finally certified that the Hunter Biden laptop really was the Hunter Biden laptop, it seems to me that President Biden won by trickery in 2020, whether or not voter fraud determined the election.

This year it appears that the American voters will have the chance to set things right and reelect Donald Trump instead of Joe Biden.

Under President Biden, (1) the deficit ballooned, (2) inflation outpaced income growth, (3) illegal immigration soared as President Biden immediately reversed President Trump's

executive orders that had secured the border and pretended for years that the border was secured, and (4) Democrats relied on Lawfare to keep the Trumps from moving back to the White House next January.

The special counsel who investigated President Biden decided against prosecution because President Biden was not fit for trial and a jury would not convict him out of pity for a failing old man.

That conclusion did not seem to be an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, but Biden is refusing to release the audio transcript of his five hour interview by the special counsel because it might be used against him in political ads and misused for AI purposes.

What could be better evidence of President Biden's fitness or unfitness for voters to consider than that audio transcript?

The cleaned up written transcript certainly is not what lawyers call the best evidence.

It may be a moot point if President Biden drops out of the presidential race to make way for Hillary Clinton, whom President Trump beat in 2016. or Michelle Obama, who did not long to be President but would bring with her as First Gentleman a two-term former President of the United States.

Would the Obamas take the risk of trying to come to the rescue of a Democrat Party now desperate to stop President Trump, apparently now the favorite in the race, or leave the task to Vice President Kamala Harris?

Can President Trump be so lucky as to run against President Biden's border czar?

I hope so.

If you want to know whether Michelle Obama will overcome her heartfelt antipathy to being President of the United States and are too polite to ask her directly, then check with the lady who runs the Obama Foundation, Valerie Jarrett, Obama mentor and loyalist.

A principled and knowledgeable lifelong Democrat responded to my original article as follows:"I enjoyed reading your article. You articulate the Trump argument very well - as I would expect. I think most agree that both [President Biden and former President Trump] have big deficiencies and both have stretched the truth - and both have done some good things and advocated for some good policies - it comes down to the weight people attach to each factor. For some immigration issue, need for stronger Israel support, imprudent fiscal policies, anti abortion feelings, mental acuity etc. and for others evidence of an effort to undermine a peaceful transition after an election that about 60 judges, including many Republican judges, said should be upheld because of a lack of evidence of fraud or misconduct on a scale that could have affected the result, seemingly isolationist international views, personal attacks of a nature that has increased acrimony in the country, gun control, mental acuity, pro abortion feelings, unwarranted attacks on public institutions and expressed admiration for anti democracy leaders - strong dictators and surrounding himself with less than terrific advisors - inability to attract and retain excellent top officials - witness the inordinately high number of former 'best people' chiefs of staff or senior advisors and/ or cabinet officials and others who say he is unqualified. I think independents think each side is right in most of their criticisms. Which is why we need a competent president to be beamed down like in Star Trek.

Undoubtedly, here is much to debate and dispute and no political candidate is flawless.

Alas, Captains Kirk and Picard are fictitious and unavailable and the man behind the Gang of 51's letter supporting the dismissal of the Hunter Biden laptop problem as Russian disinformation became President Biden's Secretary of State and became an obstacle to Israel defending itself against a sneak attack.

There will be a presidential debate between the presumptive Republican and Democrat presidential nominees next week.

Democrats will have a chance to consider whether President Biden is their best hope to block a Trump return to the White House and perhaps urge former President Barack Obama to help President Biden to realize that his time is over and the first female President of the United States should be Michelle Obama.

Fortunately for Democrats, their convention begins on August 19 and when President Trump chooses his vie presidential running mate in July, he will not know what will happen in August and should pick the best possible successor.

The sure things about the upcoming presidential election are that it will not be dull and honest fact-checkers will be desperately needed.

Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.