In a pivotal session on Thursday, the majority of Supreme Court justices hinted at their inclination to overturn a Colorado ruling that prevented former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot.

Trump, 77, alongside his legal team, sought an appeal against Colorado’s Supreme Court decision from December 19. The ruling had declared Trump ineligible for the March 5 Republican primary, citing his violation of the Constitution’s “Insurrection Clause” during the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Trump’s legal representatives put forth multiple arguments during the oral proceedings. They contended that Congress, rather than individual states, held the responsibility to enforce the clause. Moreover, they denied Trump’s involvement in an insurrection, asserting that seeking to remain in office after his 2020 election defeat did not constitute such an act.

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns about the potential ramifications of upholding the Colorado ruling. He apprehensively highlighted the risk of states arbitrarily removing politicians from opposing parties from the ballot, which could significantly impact presidential elections.

Amidst the legal deliberations, liberal Justice Elena Kagan raised the fundamental question of why one state should possess the authority to determine the eligibility of a presidential candidate.

Justice Samuel Alito presented a hypothetical scenario questioning the administration’s decisions regarding foreign policy, emphasizing the complexities surrounding diplomatic relationships, particularly referencing the Obama-Biden era’s policy towards Iran.

The crux of the matter lies in Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly bars individuals engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office under the United States. This clause also grants Congress the power to lift such disqualifications and reinstate violators onto the ballot.

Notably, some of Trump’s congressional allies proposed legislation to formally declare his non-involvement in the Capitol riot, thereby paving the way for his inclusion on the ballot.

Throughout the proceedings, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared skeptical of arguments favoring Congress as the primary enforcer of the clause. She underscored the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority for disqualification removal, juxtaposing it with Trump’s attorney Jonathan Mitchell’s indication of a simple majority.

In response to inquiries from various justices, Mitchell emphasized Trump’s assertion of presidential immunity and rejected the characterization of the Capitol incident as an insurrection, labeling it a riot instead.

The debate also touched upon whether the presidency falls under the purview of the disqualification clause, with Mitchell arguing against its inclusion.

Attorney Jason Murray, representing Colorado voters seeking Trump’s removal from the ballot, emphasized the absence of a rational basis for creating a special exemption to the clause tailored to Trump.

As the legal discourse unfolds, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision holds significant implications, not only for Trump’s candidacy but also for the broader interpretation of constitutional provisions governing presidential eligibility.

According to a study posted by the National Institutes of Health earlier this year, indicates that the tight-fitting masks may expose users to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals.

The journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety as well as the NIH website both provided details of the research.

Scientists from Jeonbuk National University in South Korea examined reusable fabric masks as well as two other disposable medical-grade mask types for the research. The results revealed that the chemicals produced by the medical-grade masks had at least eight times the advised safety limit of toxic volatile organic compounds (TVOCs), according to the experts.

According to the data, breathing in TVOCs may cause headaches and nausea. Organ damage and cancer are also linked to prolonged and repetitive exposure.

The researchers cautioned that further research is necessary to fully understand the VOCs connected to surgical mask usage and their impacts on human health.

They continued by saying that there are measures to lessen the risk. If you open a mask and let it rest for at least 30 minutes before using it, exposure may be greatly decreased.

This suggests that the quantity of potentially dangerous compounds in surgical masks may be related to how they are packaged.

Disposable masks contain high levels of TVOCs

A study conducted by researchers tested 14 disposable and cloth masks, KFAD and KF94, made from thermoplastics polypropylene and polyurethane nylon, in South Korea and the United States. The results showed that the masks contained up to 14 times the TVOCs detected in cotton masks.

The sample with the highest amount of TVOCs had 4,808 cubic meters per microgram, which is about 4.8 parts per million, more than eight times the recommended limit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends keeping TVOC levels below 0.5 parts per million in indoor air.

The researchers also identified two chemicals linked to liver and reproductive damage: dimethylacetamide (DMAc) and dimethylformamide (DMF). The study acknowledges that the sample size was small and did not test several other popular disposable masks like KN95s.

The researchers also referenced earlier research indicating that mask mandates could cause more harm than good. The study’s findings could have new relevance as COVID-19 variant BA.2.86 is spreading throughout the United States. However, new studies highlighting the dangers of face masks could make mask mandates ineffective.

How to reduce exposure to TVOCS

TVOCs are a large group of odorous chemicals and many of them are released by cleaning and beauty products, burning fuel and cooking.

Sources of TVOCs in the home include:

• Aerosol sprays
• Air fresheners
• Automotive products
• Cleansers and disinfectants
• Moth repellents

Other sources of TVOCs include:

• Building materials and furnishings
• Craft materials, such as glues and adhesives
• Office equipment, such as carbonless copy paper, copiers and printers, permanent markers and correction fluids

The American Lung Association (ALA) warned that TVOCs may irritate the eyes, nose and throat; cause difficulty breathing and nausea; and damage the central nervous system and organs like the liver.

Some TVOCs are also considered human carcinogens, meaning they can cause cancer.

To reduce exposure to TVOCs or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), you must inspect your home for the common sources of TVOCs and VOCs.

Source control:

• Eliminate the number of products in your home that give off TVOCs.
• Only buy what you need if you are working on something that requires adhesive, caulks, paints and solvents. Unused chemicals stored in the home may “leak” and release VOCs into the air.
• Store unused chemicals in a garage or shed where people rarely visit.
• Dispose of all unused chemicals that are stored in your home or garage. Check with your city or county for the nearest household hazardous waste collection sites.
• Look for low-VOC options if you need paints and furnishing.

Ventilation and temperature control:

• Increase the amount of fresh air in your home to help reduce the concentration of VOCs indoors.
• Increase ventilation naturally by opening doors and windows. Fans can help maximize air brought in from the outside.
• Keep both the temperature and relative humidity as low as possible. Chemicals off-gas more in high temperatures and humidity.
• Schedule home renovations when your home is unoccupied or during seasons that will allow you to open doors and windows to increase ventilation.

According to documents obtained from the FBI and Department of Justice reveal that the agencies blatantly lied about Rudy Giuliani, a partisan lawyer working for then-President Donald Trump, misleading Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss into believing that all allegations against Hunter Biden came from Giuliani. Weiss was charged with prosecuting Hunter Biden for tax and fraud crimes. By doing this, the FBI concealed information from a whistleblower who accused President Joe Biden of receiving a bribe from Ukrainian authorities in order to assist his son with international business. The whistleblower’s interview was recorded.

Internal emails uncovered by The Federalist demonstrate that information concerning the Hunter Biden affair leaked from the FBI and was first supplied to the New York Times showed that Giuliani’s discovery of Hunter’s notorious laptop and the beginning of the sole inquiry into Hunter. One month after the 2020 election, the FBI Office of Public Affairs National Press Office released the NYT’s report, “Material from Giuliani Spurred a Separate Justice Depart. Pursuit of Hunter Biden,” to Weiss’ Baltimore office.

Together, the emails made public raise concerns about whether Attorney Weiss was properly informed about a secret source previously questioned by the FBI who claimed to have information showing that Biden accepted a $5 million bribe while serving as vice president in exchange for pressuring the Ukrainian government to dismiss a prosecutor looking into Hunter’s employer, Burisma Energy, for corruption.

The testimony was recorded by FBI agents as part of their interview with the source and was included on an FD-1023 form that was initially withheld from congressional Republicans who wanted to link President Biden to any possible criminal behavior by his troubled son. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already blasted the DOJ for destroying 17 audio recordings that may have implicated Biden. Weiss then heard from another source that the FBI had verified the claims provided by the anonymous person.

Weiss would have known that the confidential source claimed to have spoken with Burisma executive Mykola Zlochevsky, who allegedly told the source that he was forced into paying Biden and Hunter $5 million each in exchange for their assistance in getting prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired. Had Weiss received timely information from the FBI’s FD-1023 form, he would have known that.

50 former U.S. intelligence officers joined forces with Biden officials during the 2020 campaign to assert that Hunter’s accusations of impropriety were a product of “Russian disinformation” meant to harm the reputation of then-candidate Biden. Two years after becoming president, Biden has watched as his son was accused of many offenses, and he is still negotiating conditions for a new plea agreement with Weiss’s office. Republicans in the House are debating whether to impeach President Biden, citing the FBI’s withholding evidence among other things.

Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss was falsely told that all allegations against Hunter Biden originated from Rudy Giuliani, a partisan attorney working for then-President Donald Trump. The FBI withheld a documented interview by a whistleblower who accused President Joe Biden of accepting a bribe from Ukrainian officials to help his son conduct overseas business. Internal emails obtained by The Federalist show that leaks from the FBI about the Hunter Biden scandal, originally sent to the New York Times, suggested the only investigation began with Giuliani and the discovery of Hunter’s infamous laptop. The FBI Office of Public Affairs National Press Office leaked the story to Weiss’ Baltimore office one month after the 2020 election.

The chain of disclosed emails raises questions about whether Attorney Weiss was appropriately notified about a confidential source previously interviewed by the FBI who claimed to have evidence that Biden as vice president accepted a $5 million bribe in exchange for pressuring the government of Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating Hunter’s employer, Burisma Energy, for corruption. The FBI documented the testimony in an FD-1023 form that was originally withheld from congressional Republicans seeking to tie President Biden to potential criminal activity by his embattled son.