The Supreme Court is a joke and has been since Donald Chump appointed three injustices. Tom Boggioni (RAW STORY) reports on one of them:
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett got a dressing down from a former U.S. attorney for comments she made in her majority opinion on birthright citizenship which handed Donald Trump a win on Friday.
In a highly-criticized response to a dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Coney Barrett dismissively wrote, "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
With Coney Barrett relying heavily on the writings of the founding
fathers, long before the 14th Amendment was added, University of Alabama
Law School professor and ex-U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance begged to differ.
Over
multiple posts on Bluesky she first wrote, "If Justice Barrett thinks
we need to go back to what the Founding Fathers intended, I’ve got news
for her. Their biggest concern was avoiding tyranny. So they created 3
branches of gov’t & divvied up the power the people (that’s us) were
allowing the gov’t to use to create order for all of us."
She
added, "I think about this a lot, b/c I’m finishing up a book on
democracy (I’d love it if you’d preorder it). If you read the Federalist
Papers, which all of the conservative justices-good members of the
Federalist Society have, you know the FF spilled a lot of ink debating
how best to avoid tyranny."
Get the feeling that there were about 100 million more qualified Americans who could have been appointed to the bench?
Thursday, June 26, 2025. It's still the economy, stupid, and MSNBC works hard to shut itself down and go out of business.
Let
me start off with something in raised in a few e-mails. I've noted
here that there's too much going on to note everything in any
snapshot. Rachel Maddow noted that even doing a daily program on MSNBC
during Chump's first 100 days didn't provide her with enough time to
cover every story -- or even every major story. Lawrence O'Donnell has
noted the same. I write one thing a day here (the daily is a nightly on
Saturday and Sunday). But there are also at least 24 other posts each
day. So there are videos and press releases and other things that go up
and cover other topics.
There's
a topic that I didn't cover in a snapshot and apparently Jen Psaki did
cover it "but I knew you wouldn't post it because of what you said about
Jen." I'm going to assume that refers to Ava and my "Media: If MSNBC could just clone Rachel Maddow . . .."
Jen
is in danger of losing her job. Ava and I don't do pile ons. When
Britney Spears was the source of mockery, we avoided the topic because
we don't do pile ons. Otherwise, we might very well have been like so
many others and having to issue apologies for the way in which we
covered her.
If Jen
wasn't in danger of losing her job, we wouldn't have written what we
did. As she is currently, she's not prime time. They could switch her
to daytime, but she's not primetime. We noted that she's shrinking and not
expanding since taking over for Rachel. That is true. We also noted
that she's being buried under advice from this exec and that exec and
consultants and -- It's too much and it would be too much for anyone.
She needs to make clear that she's heard the advice and she's going to
use what she can and ignore the rest.
Then
she needs to get back in front of the camera and breathe. Don't be
pushed around. Don't give up your space. Look into the camera and own
the moment.
We wrote that
piece because (a) MSNBC is in serious trouble right now -- ways that
people don't even know outside the executive offices -- and (b) Jen is
not delivering the numbers the network was hoping for and there's talk
already of replacing her.
That
piece was our flare for Jen. She has continued to be noted here. In
fact, a video was posted of her show Tuesday night and Wednesday
morning. She needs to center herself and breathe.
That's
the only way she's going to hold this spot. If she can't, she can't.
That's the Jen aspect of what Ava and I wrote. The part about "MSNBC is
in serious trouble right now" is the other reason we wrote. MSNBC has
had one identity crisis after another. Joe Scarborough may be seen as a
'consistent' but don't forget he's repeatedly shape shifted himself
and, years and years go, would joke and laugh with his 'buddy' and
fellow on air Mike Savage.
The
network has been poorly run repeatedly. We didn't really watch MSNBC
until 2024. We might catch Andrea Mitchell during the day while having
lunch. We might catch Chris Hayes at night. Both were dependent upon
our speaking schedule that day. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell's
program on SIRIUS XM or caught it via Apple Podcast. When a friend at
MSNBC told us how bad things could get, we said we'd take a look at the
network and we did.
Most
people are suited to host programs during daytime or to nighttime. There's really not
overlap. The only one who I know of that could pull off both was Phil
Donahue. He demonstrated he could carry a daytime audience for years.
He also demonstrated, on MSNBC, that he could carry a primetime
audience.
Dick Cavett
should never have been on prime time. He didn't have the personality.
You can argue when the talk show was on PBS, that it didn't matter. But
he didn't stick to PBS. I never liked Johnny Carson but he could
deliver nighttime. It's a different type of program and more 'in your
face.' David Letterman was too large for daytime and bombed when he
tried it but when he came back as a nighttime host, he became a legend.
Chris Hayes does a nice program. It is not in-your-face.
That's not his style. He should have long ago been switched over to
daytime where likeable matters so much more. Where likeability matters
so much, in fact, that when you lose it -- see Ellen DeGeneres -- you
lose your program.
All
shows need a POV but prime time talk shows especially need it.
Ari, Stephanie, Lawrence and Rachel have that. Joy Reid had it. MSNBC
is programming as though FRIENDS and WILL & GRACE will never go
off the air. Instead of making a strong programming bloc that would
lift the ratings for the network, they're spacing out the real hits and
putting Chris and others on in between. Chris is not UNION SQUARE but
some of the programs are truly not Must See TV. Again, there should be
no space between the heavy hitters. There has been no real thought put
into the schedule.
FOX "NEWS" doesn't do that. They know who is
daytime and who is nighttime. And their shows have a POV. That's one
of the reason their ratings are high. Another reason is a FOX "NEWS"
viewer has no life and lives in front of the TV. I can't think of
anything worse than watching one show after another like a zombie in
front of the TV. I miss Rachel on a daily basis but I'm glad because
when she was on daily, it was get the TV on in time for Chris and sail
through to the end of Stephanie's program (Nielsen viewer, so the TV had
to be on to gather the Nielsen data).
MSNBC
has never been run like a real network and heads may roll if they don't
get it together. If Jen can reclaim her voice, she's fine on
primetime. If she can't, they should switch her to daytime because she
has likeability and even buried under 'suggestions,' she remains
likeable.
The VA almost
got mentioned in a snapshot this week regarding work. There are many
things that don't make it into the snapshot when it goes up because
there's just too much stuff that we are trying to squeeze in. We're
starting with the economy so we'll be dropping that topic into this
snapshot.
Donald Chump has
ruined the economy. It is not recovering and it honestly can't recover
at present. He's too erratic, he's too stupid. And his administration
flunkies are too scared to tell him the truth: (in the words of Taylor
Swift) You need to calm down. His erratic behavior and his constant
threats and insults negatively impact the markets. He's a fool.
After
the Trump Administration intensified its push for federal workers to
return to the office, a new study highlights the potential downsides of
this mandate.Conducted by Alessandra Fenizia and Tom Kirchmaier,
researchers from the George Washington University and the London School
of Economics, the study focuses on productivity impacts of
work-from-home (WFH) arrangements for public sector jobs. They found
that working from home boosts productivity by 12% compared to in-office
work.
The prevailing sentiment
is that physical presence ensures better accountability and
productivity. However, the study’s findings suggest that these arguments
might be more rooted in perception than reality.
The
study, which evaluated detailed administrative data from police staff
alternating between home and office settings, indicates that employees
working from home managed more cases per day, without any increase in
errors or loss of quality. These findings held true even when
researchers controlled for variables such as shift length and nature of
tasks, ensuring that the results were not merely artifacts of different
work schedules. Moreover, the productivity boost was amplified when
tasks were assigned by supervisors rather than through automated
systems, suggesting that the structure and management of remote work can
play a critical role in maximizing its benefits.
One
of the primary reasons for increased productivity was a reduction in
workplace distractions. The study found that in the office, employees
were more likely to be interrupted by conversations, coffee breaks, and
other non-work-related interactions. By contrast, the relative isolation
of remote work allowed for sustained focus, contributing to the higher
case numbers logged from home. This challenges a common narrative
promoted by some legislators, who argue that employees who work from
home are more likely to slack off without the direct supervision
afforded by office settings.
Rep. James Comer,
a Kentucky Republican, for example, during the Jan. 15 2025
“Stay-at-Home Federal Workforce” hearing, blamed service backlogs on
officials “coddling federal workers with a perk—telework—that allowed
them to shirk their duties.” Similarly, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a
Republican from Louisiana told reporters on Dec. 5 2024 that only “about
1 %” of federal employees are “actually working in the office,” adding
that workers must “return to their desks and get back to the work they
are supposed to be doing,” a claim that Politifact rated as “Pants on
Fire.” However, Fenizia and Kirchmaier’s data showed no such shirking;
instead, it demonstrated that remote work can enhance efficiency without
sacrificing quality.
No surprise, idiots like Mike Johnson didn't know what they were talking about. By the way, Happy Pride, Mike, happy Pride.
I
have no idea if what I'm about to note is going on anywhere other than the VA
but we were speaking to a number of veterans last week and many work
for the VA.
So Chump and others want to look tough. But they just look inept (yet again).
You're
Blake. You work for the VA. The ability to work from home is why you
applied and you work for the VA in Atlanta. Or that's where you've
'worked' while working from home. They're insisting that the employees
aren't working from home anymore. What they're not making clear is that
a number of them are also not working at the VA they work for. Blake
working for the Atlanta VA? Blake took that position because he could
work from home. But he actually lives in Kentucky.
Guess
what? He's not moving to Atlanta. He's not going into the Atlanta VA
he works for. He's finding a VA facility in Kentucky that has an empty
desk and he's working for the Atlanta VA out of a desk in Kentucky.
Per the findings in the TIME article, that's not helping increase work.
You've
really just ticked off your work force and you've done so at a time
when you don't need to be doing that since the incoming and soon to be
incoming workers are not that motivated to work a job that insults them
and some don't want to be in the workforce and you're facing an
increasingly less educated work force (the whole trend stories about
young male loneliness). And let's also bring in what Paul Krugman pointed out earlier this month:
Young workers always have higher unemployment than workers as a
group. College graduates always have lower-than-average unemployment.
But normally education trumps age: Even recent college graduates have
relatively low unemployment.
But not now. As I suggested, the
current unemployment rate for young college graduates isn’t the highest
we’ve ever seen. But previous peaks have come at times of general
economic distress, like the aftermath of the global financial crisis.
Now we have low overall unemployment, only slightly above historic lows,
but unemployment among college graduates between 22 and 27 at
recession-like levels.
Chump has no clue and what it really underscores to me is Chump's lack of vision.
Yes,
he's got Project 2025 and other hate merchants telling him what to do.
Even there, he can't stick to the playbook. He has no long term vision
and never has. And you can see the impacts that's having on the
economy and the markets and the country. Gabriela León (EXPLICAME) reports on Chump's labor 'plans:'
The
mass layoff plan promoted by the Trump Administration, known as a
“reduction in force,” has returned to the Supreme Court for a final
decision. If approved, it would affect 22 government departments,
resulting in the termination of thousands of federal employees. However,
the consequences could extend far beyond the public sector, according
with GoBankingRates.
Although
the layoffs focus on federal workers, their ripple effects could reach
the broader U.S. labor market. According to employment experts, a
significant contraction in the federal workforce could affect job
stability, local economic systems, and public confidence.
“Substantial
cuts in the federal workforce can generate impacts on job stability,
consumer spending, and a widespread sense of insecurity in the job
market”, warned Eric Kingsley, partner at Kingsley Szamet Employment
Lawyers.
One direct
consequence would be increased competition for private sector jobs,
especially among skilled federal workers seeking new opportunities. This
influx could push down entry-level wages, forcing experienced
professionals to accept lower pay.
He's
not preparing for that. He has no idea what's going on. This is,
please remember, the administration that actually loathes education.
That's why they put Linda McMahon in charge of it, a certified idiot who
found JOKES FOR THE JOHN too difficult to comprehend. Linda McMahon,
the CGI version of Mammy Yokum.
Business
leaders' confidence in the U.S. economy has halved since the beginning
of the year, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co., as companies grapple
with the impact of President Donald Trump's tariffs and broader
geopolitical uncertainties.
The financial
services firm's latest Business Leaders Outlook Survey, released
Wednesday, found that optimism for the economy fell to 32 percent in
June from 65 percent in January. Additionally, 25 percent of respondents
said they expect a recession to occur at some point this year, up from
only 8 percent in January.
Concerns over the
trajectory of the U.S. economy have been fueled largely by Trump's trade
agenda, which has led to significant stock market volatility and
heightened fears of rising costs for both businesses and consumers.
However, these anxieties have been somewhat tempered by the current
pause on reciprocal tariffs, as well as the temporary easing of trading
tensions between the United States and China.
While
the survey was largely conducted prior to the start of the recent
conflict between Israel and Iran and was completed before America's
targeted strikes over the weekend, this could contribute to these
existing economic anxieties.
One expert told Newsweek that a re-escalation would represent "another adverse supply shock to the economy."
Again,
he's too erratic for the markets. He's doing real damage. Fed Chair
Jerome Powell sugar-coated it to an extend on Tuesday when appearing
before the House Financial Services Committee but he hadn't even been
speaking for a full minute before he noted "elevated uncertainty" and,
less than a minute later, he was again using the term "Surveys of
households and businesses, however, report a decline in sentiment over
recent months and elevated uncertainty about the economic outlook,
largely reflecting trade policy concerns."
Again,
he sugar coated it but the message was not good if you paid attention.
He observed, "Policy changes continue to evolve, and their effects on
the economy remain uncertain." Erratic. "Inflation remains elevated,"
that's not good news. Especially since candidate Chump promised to
bring prices down but instead, once sworn into office, drove them up and
they remain elevated and are impacting consumer confidence. Chump does
not know what he is doing and that's how I translate this statement
Powell made to the Committee:
The
effects on inflation could be short lived -- reflecting a one-time
shift in the price level. It is also possible that the inflationary
effects could instead be more persistent. Avoiding that outcome will
depend on the size of the tariff effects, on how long it takes for them
to pass through fully into prices, and, ultimately, on keeping
longer-term inflation expectations well anchored.
Yesterday, Howard Lutnick, erratic and shrill Commerce Secretary, was yet again whining that Powell had to cut interest rates.
Did Lutnick catch any of Powell's testimony on Tuesday? "For the time
being, we are well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely
course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy
stance." Did he catch that? Chump's too erratic and that's why there
is so much uncertainty. It's not for nothing that Wall Street came up
with TACO ("Trump Always Chickens Out").
'Trump
Always Chickens Out' is the phrase bestowed upon him by whom? Wall
Street. I've noted hear all along when many outlets were too scared to
hold Chump accountable that business doesn't play. Jeff Bezos? He'll
whore his ass until it just gapes non-stop with no closure in sight.
But the business sector -- especially the business press -- does not
fluff and flatter leaders who damage the economy. That's all they care
about. And that's why Chump hasn't gotten the same free ride from the
business press that other outlets have given him.
Our
economy was in pretty good shape. Joe Biden steered us in the right
direction and we were recovering economically from the pandemic. All
Chump has done since he got in office is weaken our economy. And it's
not any better this month than it was last month. There are so many
problems facing our teetering economy Jennifer Sor (BUSINESS INSIDER) notes:
The US has flirted with the dreaded S-word for much of this year, and it's not out of the woods yet.
That's
according to Torsten Sløk, the chief economist at Apollo Global
Management, who thinks the US is at a critical inflection point for
stagflation, a dire scenario in which economic growth slows while
inflation remains high.
That
problem is often regarded as even harder for policymakers to solve than
a typical recession, as higher inflation can prevent the Federal
Reserve from cutting interest rates to boost the economy.
The scenario has largely been triggered by President Donald Trump's tariffs, Sløk wrote in a white paper published on Monday.
"Tariff
hikes are typically stagflationary shocks — they simultaneously
increase the probability of an economic slowdown while putting upward
pressure on prices," Sløk wrote, adding that consensus forecasts on Wall
Street for economic growth had drifted lower this year, while inflation
forecasts have edged higher.
The Centre for Economic Policy Research, a network of many of Europe’s
best economists, has worked up quite a trade in producing “rapid
response” economic insights into current affairs. It shone, for example,
at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic when unprecedented lockdowns
required an entirely new perspective on economic policy. The group’s
“rapid response” programme has now produced a 40-chapter ebook, comprising almost 500 pages of analysis, on the economic fallout from the second Trump administration.
Among
other things, the analyses put numbers on views we have also developed
here at Free Lunch. For example, even if you think it’s a good thing to
expand manufacturing as a share of the economy, Michael Strain’s chapter
shows that Trump’s radical trade policy is unlikely to boost US
manufacturing output or jobs by much (a possibility I discussed here and here).
The ebook also features a very important chapter by John Coates, which
goes through the economic costs of undermining the rule of law (it was
evident the Trump administration was doing so within days of taking office). Anna
Maria Mayda and Giovanni Peri show how the crackdown on immigrants will
shrink the US economy, a theme also addressed by my Free Lunch
co-conspirator Tej last Sunday.
Other
chapters explore the prospects for groups that Trump’s policies are
supposed to help, in particular the middle class and those in rural
areas. The answer is: not well. Richard Baldwin highlights how many more
middle-class Americans are working in services, not in manufacturing,
and therefore stand to lose out in purchasing power when tariffs make
manufactured goods more expensive and do nothing for service sectors.
Mary Hendrickson and David Peters examine the fallout for rural areas
from tariff retaliation against US agricultural exports (as well as
immigration crackdowns and healthcare subsidy cuts). As they remind us,
US farmers only got through the US-China trade war of the first Trump
administration thanks to financial support from the federal government.
Another issue negatively impacting the economy is Chump's immigration actions.
And we're back to MSNBC.
And
. . . It's MORNING JOE. I don't like Joe personally. I was planning
on ignoring the show -- and had since and his wife groveled in front of
Chump.
But that segment? Better than anything MSNBC offered yesterday -- excepting Lawrence and Stephanie.
What we got instead was Abortion Barbie.
Remember that? Remember her?
If not, it's not your fault. But I'll help you out with nobody's first name: Wendy.
In
2014, MSNBC hosts actually called her "Abortion Barbie." She was going
to shake up Texas and be the way forward and let's grab the smear that
Republicans are using against her and reclaim it and . . .
Davis needs to lower the stardom and demonstrate how she can be a work horse.
She needs to lose the ridiculous hair, she's not Donald Trump's ex-wife,
and either pull it into a ponytail (which Texas women relate to) or get
it cut.
She needs to tone down the make up as well.
She's a little too 'starish' currently for Texas.
And Greg Abbott?
Greg Abbott is in a wheel chair. He has been since 1984. From that
wheel chair, he's been on the state supreme court and successfully and
repeatedly run for attorney general. That's the kind of can-do spirit
that Texans admire.
Cecile Richards is deeply stupid.
Making Wendy Davis a media star only made her a vapid blond with big hair.
If Cecile knew a damn thing about Texas politics, she would have already
realized that Greg Abbott's not going to be beaten by a glossy 8 x 10
photograph.
And
yet there was MSNBC yesterday. Jen and Chris the worst of the
offenders but pretty much everyone but Lawrence and Stephanie (I didn't
catch Ari's show so I don't know what he did) lying and lying and
fluffing and fluffing.
Zohran Mamdani 'won' the
NYC Democratic Party's mayoral primary. (Predicted to win, results
aren't in and it could actually be weeks.)
He
did not become Mayor of NYC on Tuesday though you have to forgive aged
idiots like Bernie Sanders -- our old racist, Bernie, 'endearing'
himself yet again to Black voters yesterday with his rude and dishonest
remarks -- for thinking Zohran is the mayor.
MSNBC on airs like Chris and Jen lying about what a huge victory this was and blah blah blah and come from behind and --
Stop
lying. Do you think your viewers don't remember you bringing him on
your MSNBC programs over and over? There were at least nine serious
candidates in that primary. But if you watched MSNBC, you only heard,
day after day, from and of Zohran.
Oh, you did hear about Cuomo, they were eager to attack Cuomo daily.
Near
the end, the week before, Brad Lander made it into MSNBC's news cycle
for one day because of an action he took to defend immigrants that made
national news. Otherwise, they would have continued to ignore him as
they did throughout the campaign.
What hurts your ratings, MSNBC?
Looking
like cheap little whores and, Chris and Jen, that's what you looked
like as you went on and on thinking the viewers at home hadn't watched
your shows for the last month and seen all the whoring.
There were the whores back again.
Doing to Zohran yesterday what they did to Wendy Davis.
Zohran did not have the popular backing he needed -- in the first round, he got 43 percent to Cumo's 36 percent. He could have.
If he'd been stronger on immigration, he could have.
What's
especially sad there is that when he was running for office in 2020, he
was much stronger and much clearer on the issue of immigration.
With
Brad -- a Socialist just like Zohran -- making so many stronger moves
and remarks demonstrating his support for immigrants, his large number
of supporters are watching to see what they think of Zohran. In the
first round, Brad got 11 percent of the vote. The bulk of that support
was because Brad ran on an issue (a fact that eludes old man Bernie --
and please read Elaine's "We do not need an 87 y.o. president -- pack it in"
from last night and grasp that Bernie is not needed anymore, we do not
need that tired old man running for president again -- that is as insane
as Bernie himself is).
And MSNBC, the
network that made Zohran their personal choice, could have helped him
yesterday in the general election by addressing actual issues.
But
the idiots of MSNBC saw fit to try to do another star creation. It
failed Wendy Davis and left Texas under the control of Greg Abbot (still
under that control, by the way). But they just know what works, right?
Yesterday was not the time for star making and star making isn't really needed in a politician to begin with.
What was needed was discussing real issues. Not generic statements. Not trash about how this primary proves something!!!!!
What
it appears to have proven is that rank choice voting -- something I've
supported for decades and what we use each year when polling our
community for their top ten on books of the year -- is not going to
work.
I'm not saying that because of who appears to have won.
I'm saying that because it's Thursday morning and it may be weeks before we actually have a winner.
That's
not really a selling point for rank-choice voting. NYC is a city. I
favor rank-choice voting and favor it nationwide. But I'm going to be
rethinking that now because I'm not in the mood to wait weeks after a
presidential election to find out who won.
And
are we we aware that the figures I used on percentage -- the same ones
the media's using -- aren't accurate because they don't include ballots
still enroute in the snail mail?
That got
ignored -- the nonsense of waiting weeks for the actual results -- but
it also ignores that NYCers aren't voting on prom king. They're voting
for issues. They will be doing that in the general election. And your
fluffing a thirty-something isn't helping him.
Brad,
in the first round, was a serious challenge to Zohran and Andrew. And
that was because of his positions, statements and actions on the
immigration issue.
Trying to make Zohran
twinkle won't produce winning results in the general election. But
MSNBC wants to be a star maker so they did nonsense and fluff when they
could have been devoted to actual issues and expanding support for
Zohran that way.
It's moments like these that
make me think maybe MSNBC does need to go off the air. That's what the
worry is right now. Not low ratings. The suits are worried that MSNBC
will actually go under.
We got Jen talking
campaigning with Zohran -- gushing. The primary is over and no one
needs the bragging or the spit shining. It's not going to help Zohran.
You had him right in front of you, Jen, and you could have made a real
difference by drilling down on policy. Instead, you came off like a fan
girl airhead.
If that's what MSNBC has to offer, go ahead and shut it down.
But the same time they offered that garbage, they also had Lawrence and Stephanie offering these two segments.
That's
real. THE MORNING JOE segment we highlighted earlier is real. Not a
MORNING JOE fan but we'll highlight them as opposed to the crap fluff
that too many MSNBC programs keep churning out and doing so at their own
risk.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff's office.
Washington, D.C. – Today, during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s
judicial nomination hearing, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) pressed
Emil Bove, President Donald Trump’s nominee for a seat on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on whether he suggested that DOJ
attorneys should ignore court orders.
Key Excerpts:
On Bove suggesting he would ignore court orders to advance President Trump’s immigration agenda:
Schiff: […] In the complaint, it says
Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts “fuck
you” and ignoring any such court order. Did you say anything of that
kind in the meeting?
Bove: Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind, to the extent I usually —
Schiff: Wouldn’t you recall, Mr. Bove,
if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department
lawyers that maybe they should consider telling the court “fuck you”? It
seems to me that would be something you’d remember, unless that’s the
kind of thing you say frequently.
Bove: Well, I’ve certainly said things
encouraging litigators at the department to fight hard for valid
positions that we have to take in defense of our clients.
Schiff: And have you frequently
suggested that they say “fuck you” and ignore court orders? Is that also
something you frequently do such you might not remember doing it in
this occasion?
Bove: No. And as I explained, I have never directed —
Schiff: So, did you or did you not make those comments during that meeting?
Bove: Which comments, Senator?
Schiff: You really need me to repeat
it? Did you suggest, as Mr. Reuveni wrote, that DOJ would need to
consider telling the courts “fuck you” and ignore any such court order?
Bove: I did not suggest that there
would be any need to consider ignoring court orders. At the point of
that meeting, there were no court orders to discuss.
Schiff: Well, did you suggest telling the courts “fuck you” in any manner?
Bove: I don’t recall.
Schiff: You just don’t remember that.
Well, let me ask you this. It also says in the complaint, “Bove
indicated and stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to
take off no matter what.” These are the planes that a judge was ordering
not be used to render people to a maximum-security prison outside the
country. Did you say during that meeting, did you stress to all in
attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what?
Bove: Senator, your characterization is not accurate.
Schiff: It’s not my characterization.
It’s the characterization of a decorated prosecutor who was in that
meeting. Are you saying that he’s lying?
Bove: As I said at the beginning of the hearing —
Schiff: No, no, I’m not interested in
what you said the beginning of the hearing. I’m interested in whether
you stressed to people in attendance that the planes needed to take off
no matter what. Did you say that?
Bove: I certainly conveyed the importance of the upcoming operation.
Schiff: Well, don’t paraphrase here. Did you tell people in attendance the planes needed to take off no matter what?
Bove: I don’t recall the specific words that I used.
Schiff: Wouldn’t you recall saying that
if you had instructed that the planes needed to take off no matter
what, including whether the court ordered otherwise? You wouldn’t
remember that?
Bove: This is a mischaracterization, Senator, there were no court orders at this point.
Schiff: Well, there was a court order. Wasn’t there?
Bove: No, that’s —
Schiff: Wasn’t there a court order by
Judge Boasberg. If not in this specific case, then in related cases that
that people not be sent out of the country until the court could rule?
Wasn’t there a court order?
Bove: Not at the time of that meeting, Senator.
On calling for the meeting notes referenced in the whistleblower’s report on Bove:
Schiff: […] Let me ask you this, Mr. Bove, if there are notes of that meeting, will you provide them to this committee?
Bove: I defer to the committee and to the executive branch on the procedure.
Schiff: And if the committee requests them, will you provide those notes to the committee?
Bove: I defer to the executive branch on the handling of that request.
Schiff: And let me ask you about notes
from another meeting, which are contesting here, and that is the meeting
over the decision to dismiss the case in New York, the corruption case
against the mayor of New York. According to Ms. Sassoon, the U.S.
Attorney at the time, during the meeting with Adams’ attorneys, where
she described Adams’ attorneys repeatedly urging what amounted to a quid
pro quo, that you admonished one of the lawyers in the room to stop
taking notes. Is that true?
Bove: I don’t believe I instructed that
attorney to stop taking notes. I did remark on the fact that he was
taking extensive notes, yes.
Schiff: And why did it concern you that he was taking notes of that meeting?
Bove: Because at that point in the
meeting, we were discussing who was responsible for media leaks, and I
was making the point that only the prosecutors had created an extensive
record that could support detailed leaks.
Schiff: And you were concerned, were you, that information about this potential quid pro quo might become public? Was that the concern?
Bove: I’ve explained that there was no quid pro quo.
Schiff: Will you provide the notes of
that meeting, which you, according to the U.S. Attorney, instructed be
collected at the end of the meeting?
Bove: I think a member of my staff may
have given that instruction outside my presence, and I defer to the
committee and the executive branch on records requests and how there
should be handled.
[…]
Schiff: […] I’ve requested the notes
from two pivotal meetings that go to the heart of the nominee’s
credibility. The meeting over the decision to drop charges against the
mayor of New York, and the meeting in which the whistleblower alleges
that the nominee suggested ignoring court orders and telling the courts,
essentially, “fuck you.” The witness has said that the decision whether
to turn off those notes will determine or depend, I guess, on whether
there’s an assertion of privilege of some kind. And we have the great,
good fortune at this moment to have the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General here with us today. We can resolve this right now. I
would ask through the chair whether the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General will approve the provision of these notes to the
committee. They could be provided to the chair and the Ranking Member in
camera, if necessary, so that the question that Senator Kennedy asked
about whether there was some illicit bargain, and that my colleagues
have asked, can be resolved. If there are detailed notes of these
meetings, it will give us an answer to who’s telling the truth here.
Reid told Charlamagne Tha God that she’s “barely hanging on” with Democrats at the moment.
“I’ve
been a Democrat since I was old enough to vote, but I’m barely hanging
on, honestly, because at this point the party is not bigger than the
future of my kids,” Reid said. “You know what I mean? Like, I have three
children. I have a daughter and two sons that have to live in this
country as Black people. And fascism don’t work for me, you know? And
I’m not willing to cede the country to Trumpism and MAGA simply because
I’m clinging to this party.”
Reid called out
Democrats upset with Jean-Pierre over her announcement that she is
leaving the party not long after her time as a press secretary in former
President Joe Biden’s administration.
“People
are getting all mad at Karine Jean-Pierre for saying…I’m mad at that
because I’m like, at this point it isn’t, who cares what the party label
is? Give me an effective fighter,” she said.
Reid
argued progressives like Crockett are the most effective fighters, but
they are being ignored by the party’s mainstream wing. Crockett bowed
out of the bid this week to become the ranking member on the House
Oversight Committee.
“It
was clear by the numbers that my style of leadership is not exactly what
they were looking for, and so I didn’t think that it was fair for me to
then push forward and try to rebuke that,” Crockett explained to
reporters.
Reid said Democrats should start emphasizing effective leadership over everything else.
“If
Jasmine Crockett is the most effective fighter, give me Jasmine
Crockett. And I really don’t care what you have to move around or who
you have disappoint in order to give me her. Just give me here because
we need a leader,” she said.
There is so much in that and, sorry, but the bulk is nonsense.
Jasmine
Crockett. She's a media star. I hope she becomes more. She says the
right things. But she's a member of Congress. Where is she doing the
right things?
Again, she says the right
things. Joy sees her as a leader. I love Jasmine Crockett but I don't
see any leadership. She's a member of Congress. There are so many
things she could be doing but isn't. Do they all need to be tutored on
Mike Gravel and what he accomplished as a senator during Watergate. I
hope Jasmine ends up a leader.
But
too many idiots are screaming "LEADER!" at people who speak on camera
very well but do nothing. And does a leader really step aside?
She's supposedly a fighter. But she's up against some resistance in seeking leadership so she just gives up?
That's leadership?
And
there are things other than leadership that matter. Can you hold your
own in a hearing? Jasmine has demonstrated she can. But I don't
mistake that very important skill for leadership. I see leadership as
leadership. Only.
Now let's deal with Joy's whine/gripe. I'm sorry, Joy, is this not a life defining moment that we are living in?
Because
I believe it is. I believe our entire democracy is at stake. So I'm
really not in the mood for these people who keep crapping on my party. I
saw Joy did a video with the Socialist. Didn't stream it because I
don't care for him. Hope he wins NYC mayor. But am fully aware --
though Joy appears not at all aware -- that if he become Mayor he will
have about a year on the job when the mid-terms roll around and that the
GOP will paint my party as a Socialist Party and that the GOP will use
any problems in NYC to prove what happens when "those Socialists take
over!"
The Socialist won
the primary. Let's all pretend that was a fair fight and that the
Socialist wasn't pimped on Chris Hayes' MSNBC program, that bad program
in Joy's old slot with three hosts, Jen's program, etc, etc. While
other candidates couldn't get any traction -- not even the other
Socialist who was fighting for immigrant rights.
I think Joy wants to go Socialist.
Good
luck with that, Joy. I'm not a Socialist. I won't become one. I
think the mayor issue is going to be like the DA issue in my city. Or
have we all forgotten how they ran Chesa Boudin out of town?
Oh, wow, no one ever thought of that!!!
Because, Joy, you seem to have stopped thinking.
I'm not done. One more point.
Karine Jean-Pierre.
I bit my tongue on that idiot. But since Joy wants to glorify her.
She's a damn idiot. If you missed it she was boo-hoo Joe was forced out. He was forced out!!!! So she was leaving the party.
Huh?
You
got up at the podium and lied to the American people day after day
pretending Joe Biden was of sound mind. We know the decline now. We
know you lied. You need to get off your high horse and apologize to the
American people but, Karine Jean-Pierre, you don't even have the common sense to do that.
Joy,
I hope that appearance garners you new viewers because just reading
about it is enough to make me never want to listen to you again.
Wednesday, June 25, 2025. Donald Chump continues to terrorize
immigrants but makes sure that your tax dollars go towards paying Kristi
Noem's stud services fee.
Let's start with a
taxpayer note. The Chump economy is a bad economy. Prices have not
gone down, they've continued to increase as the May figures proved.
Many people across the country are struggling. So I'm sure all
Americans are thrilled to know that we'll now be paying -- our tax
dollars -- for Kristi Noem's boy toy to fly the friendly skies.
President Donald Trump
announced his appointments to an advisory council inside the Department
of Homeland Security on Tuesday, with a list that includes a right-wing
news commentator, former lawmakers, Trump’s former attorney Rudy
Giuliani and a top former campaign adviser.
The
announcement by Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says
the council, established first in 2002, will provide “real-time,
real-world and independent advice on homeland security operations.”
The
list includes right-wing political commentator Mark Levin, as well as
Giuliani, who helped lead efforts to try and overturn the 2020 election
results and was later sued for defamation by two Georgia election
workers; a lawsuit he lost before a jury in Washington, DC.
“This
new-look, America First HSAC will draw upon a deep well of public and
private sector experience from homeland security experts committed to
fulfilling President Trump’s agenda,” the press release on the new
council states.
The appointments also include Corey Lewandowski, a Trump campaign leader in 2016 who is currently a chief adviser to Noem.
No,
not Rudy G. We said "boy toy," not "horror whore." Besides, like
Donald Chump, Rudy G can't manage stud services anymore. Not at his
age.
Lewandowski met his future wife Alison Hardy when he was in ninth
grade and she was in eighth grade. In 1998, Hardy married Brian Kinney,
who was killed onboard United Airlines Flight 175 on September 11, 2001. Four years later, in 2005, Lewandowski married Hardy.[16] Together they have four children.[24]
Lewandowski is a Catholic.[16]
In September 2021, Lewandowski was removed from his role as
chairman of a super PAC called Make America Great Again Action after
reports of sexual harassment accusations from a donor.[116][117]
That same month, conservative media outlet American Greatness reported that Lewandowski was having an extramarital affair with South Dakota governor Kristi Noem,
for whom he had long been a political advisor. Noem called the report a
"disgusting lie", saying, "these old, tired attacks on conservative
women are based on a falsehood that we can't achieve anything without a
man's help."[118][119][120] In September 2023, the New York Post and the Daily Mail published similar reports about Noem and Lewandowski, which Noem's spokesman denied.[121][122]
Congratulations, America, you're on the hook for Kristi's stud service fee.
Remember,
Kristi's married too. Was when news leaked about the affair and still
is. But, of course, she lives in the DC area while her husband Byron
lives in South Dakota.
You
know raving loon Marjorie Taylor Greene has been insisting Jesus is
'returning' this week. Let's hope so for Kristi's sake. Without Jesus'
compassion, MAGA will be left with the directive to stone Kristi for
being married and having an affair. What would be a problem in
functional administrations is the norm in a Chump administration. After
all, Donald's motto is: We'll get at least a little slap and tickle by
any means necessary.
Houston
police called federal immigration agents on a woman who dialed 911 to
report domestic abuse by her ex-husband in April, newly released records
show.
The woman, an immigrant from El
Salvador who has lived in Houston for seven years, had a removal order
stemming from the denial of her asylum claim. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents declined to pick her up because they said there was
no one to take custody of her children, according to a copy of the
police report obtained by the Houston Chronicle through a public records
request.
The woman hasn't yet
been taken into federal custody, but victims' advocates said the
incident is a worst-case scenario for those worried about the worsening
state of domestic violence in the region and the likelihood that women
will avoid reporting problems to law enforcement.
"Anecdotally,
we know there's a huge fear in the immigrant community about reporting
any type of incident to law enforcement because of the fear of being
deported," said Amy Smith, deputy director at the Harris County Domestic
Violence Coordinating Council.
An HPD spokesperson defended the officer's actions, saying he was simply following protocol.
So
if someone is a victim of domestic violence and the victim looks like
they might possibly be from another country, the best response at this
time is apparently not to call 911. Doing so, whether you are an
American citizen or not, could get you rounded up by ICE.
That's very sad, very disgusting and very telling about the Chump administration.
A
coalition of immigrant rights, faith and pro-democracy organizations
presented a letter with 12,000 signatures Tuesday to the National
Sheriffs' Association Conference in Florida, urging them to protect
public safety rather than work with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
The letter
urges sheriffs agencies to refrain from immigration-related issues, and
stay away from what the organizers consider as the dangers of President
Donald Trump's “anti-immigrant rhetoric and harmful immigration
agenda.”
About
30 people attended a rally outside Broward County Convention Center in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where the annual sheriffs' association
conference was taking place.
“When
sheriffs take on the responsibility of federal immigration authorities,
it undermines your core mission, stretches already limited resources,
and most importantly, causes real harm," the letter said.
Will
the sheriffs give serious thought to the request? Good question. But
at least it appears the FBI is not willing to break the law for ICE
anymore. Josh Fiallo (DAILY BEAST) notes:
White
House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s push to have the FBI
assist in the Trump administration’s migrant crackdown has been put on
ice.
Instead of going on immigration raids,
sources told Fox News and NBC News that the majority of FBI agents on
immigration duty are now returning to traditional roles to thwart
possible threats from Iran and its proxies.
The pivot
back to counterterrorism will place FBI agents in a more traditional
role. It comes a month after Miller mandated ICE make at least 3,000
migrant arrests a day in a heated meeting at its D.C. headquarters. NBC
reported at the time that 2,000 agents from the FBI, DEA, and the
Marshals Service were ordered to embed with ICE to boost arrest numbers.
Many of those agents are now being pulled back to their day jobs.
“Guess
they are realizing this whole national security thing is important,
after all,” a source with direct knowledge of the matter told NBC.
The FBI wrote in a statement that it “does not comment on specific operational adjustments or personnel decisions.”
“However,
we continuously assess and realign our resources to respond to the most
pressing threats to our national security and to ensure the safety of
the American people,” the statement added.
As
the roundups increase and continue, more and more people are impacted
and aware. Coverage of what's actually happening also spreads the word
and spreads revulsion towards Donald Chump.
It's inhumane and it's impacting lives and it's impacting the economy. KLAS reports, " A growing sense of fear and uncertainty is spreading
through immigrant communities across the country following a wave of
recent ICE raids. In the Las Vegas valley, the impact is being felt in
deep, personal ways, even leading to the temporary closure of a popular
North Las Vegas marketplace. What used to be a busy weekend hotspot is now quiet as Broadacres
Marketplace, a beloved swap meet in the northeast valley, has
temporarily closed." You're seeing that across the country. Cindy Carcamo, Dianne Solis and Alfredo Corchado (GUARDIAN) note:
At Hector’s Mariscos restaurant in the heavily Latino and immigrant city of Santa Ana, California, sales of Mexican seafood have slid. Seven tables would normally be full, but diners sit at only two this Tuesday afternoon.
“I
haven’t seen it like this since Covid,” manager Lorena Marin said in
Spanish as cumbia music played on loudspeakers. A US citizen, Marin even
texted customers she was friendly with, encouraging them to come in.
“No, I’m staying home,” a customer texted back. “It’s really screwed up out there with all of those immigration agents.”
Increasing immigrant arrests in California have
begun to gut-punch the economy and wallets of immigrant families and
beyond. In some cases, immigrants with legal status and even US citizens
have been swept into Donald Trump’s dragnet.
The 2004 fantasy film A Day Without a Mexican – chronicling what would happen to California
if Mexican immigrants disappeared – is fast becoming a reality, weeks
without Mexicans and many other immigrants. The implications are stark
for many, both economically and personally.
“We
are now seeing a very significant shift toward enforcement at labor
sites where people are working,’ said Andrew Selee, president of the
nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. “Not a focus on people with
criminal records, but a focus on people who are deeply integrated in the
American economy.”
After six months of aggressive
immigration enforcement and promises to focus on deporting violent
criminals, the Trump administration has arrested and detained a small
fraction of the undocumented immigrants already known to Immigration and
Customs Enforcement as having been convicted of sexual assault and
homicide, internal ICE data obtained by NBC News shows.
The
data is a tally of every person booked by ICE during fiscal year 2025
so far, including during the Biden administration, running from Oct. 1
through May 31. It shows a total of 185,042 people arrested and booked
into ICE facilities during that time; 65,041 of them have been convicted
of crimes. The most common categories of crimes they committed were
immigration and traffic offenses.
Almost half of the people currently in ICE custody have neither been convicted of nor charged with any crime, other ICE data shows.
[. . .]
The new data obtained by NBC News shows that from Oct. 1 to May 31, ICE
arrested 752 people convicted of homicide and 1,693 people convicted of
sexual assault, meaning that at the absolute most, the Trump
administration has detained only 6% of the undocumented immigrants known
to ICE to have been convicted of homicide and 11% of those known to ICE
to have been convicted of sexual assault.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is holding around 59,000
detainees in facilities across the country, likely setting a record high
as the Trump administration aggressively expands nationwide immigration arrests, according to internal government data obtained by CBS News.
On Monday, June 23, ICE's detention level was — on paper at least — at over 140% capacity, since Congress last allocated 41,500 detainee beds for the agency, the figures show.
The
federal statistics show nearly half — or 47% — of those currently
detained by ICE lack a criminal record and fewer than 30% have been
convicted of crimes, a sign of the widening scope of President Trump's
escalating crackdown on illegal immigration. On the campaign trail, Mr.
Trump vowed to expel dangerous criminal migrants, though top officials
in his administration have said no one in the U.S. illegally will be
immune from deportation.
The
administration is lying to the American people. They are targeting
workplaces and where day laborers gather. These are not criminals
guilty of murder or rape. These are workers in this country. And with
the Nazi Stephen Miller instituting his quota, ICE agents are no better
than traffic cops at speed traps at the end of each month trying to make
their quota.
There is no noble mission. There is only abuse and discrimination.
Recent deportations of immigrants have caused a nationwide outrage leading to widespread protests
and a heightened sense of fear among immigrants and their families.
This blog post summarizes some of the major themes associated with an
upcomingwebinar Wednesday June 25, featuring this author team
that focuses on the implications of these deportations and the larger
climate on Latino immigrants. The panel will make reference to their
recently fielded (April to May, 2025) Latino Immigrant National Attitude Survey (LINAS)
(n=1,000) which provides a timely snapshot to how immigrants are faring
in the first five months of a second Trump administration.
The webinar will highlight findings
related to the deportation policy’s implications for everyday life among
Latino immigrants, along with how the threat of deportation is shifting
the behavior of these vulnerable communities. Below are some of the
highlights that the panel will be discussing in more detail:
The
survey makes clear that Latino immigrants are feeling the effects of
this shift in political and policy climates, with over half (53%) of
Latino immigrants reporting that they worry a family member or close
friend will be deported, and nearly one-in-five (19%) reporting that
they worry a great deal and all the time.
A
robust 69% of the sample feels that there is “a lot” of anti-immigrant,
and anti-Hispanic, sentiments, policies, and attitudes in the United
States. Similarly, 82% of the sample believe that there is either some
or a lot of discrimination directed at immigrants right now.
One
of the most well-documented implications of the increasing threat of
deportation is the shift in behavior associated with fear of being
deported or putting friends or family in harm’s way. According to the
survey, 16% of Latino immigrants have avoided contacting police to
report a crime or calling the police due to the deportation plans of the
Trump administration and the current political environment. Similarly,
one-in-10 Latino immigrants have avoided going to their children’s
school or interacting with educational professionals in their children’s
school.
The panel will also examine the policy
attitudes of Latino immigrants as reflected in the survey, as well as
the implications of the current political climate on the health and
political behavior of Latino immigrants. Below are some of the data
points and emerging political views of Latino immigrants that the panel
will discuss.
The
president’s campaign suggested their deportation efforts would focus on
removing violent criminals, a consistent theme across messaging from
the White House more recently. However, only 29% of Latino immigrants
believe that most Latino immigrants who are held in immigration
detention facilities have probably committed serious crimes in the
United States.
When
asked if any aspects of their health or their personal behavior have
shifted since President Trump was re-elected in 2024, over one-in-five
(22%) of the sample reported that their mental health has gotten worse.
Political scientists have found that Latino immigrants have mobilized themselves
in response to discriminatory immigration policies, which has led to an
increase in both naturalization and voter registration in the past.
There is early evidence that this same process is starting to develop
now, as nine percent of the sample reported that they have registered to
vote and eight percent have started the process to acquire permanent
residency or citizenship since the Trump administration came into office
in 2025.
Across the country, Americans protest daily. Here's Spokane, Washington yesterday.
Hundreds of activists flooded San Francisco’s
City Hall Monday to protest cuts to nonprofit funding in the city’s
pending budget, saying the mayor is pulling back support for
working-class and low-income San Franciscans at a time these communities
are facing threats from the federal government.
During more than eight hours of public comment on the city’s spending
plan, hundreds of housing caseworkers, immigrants’ rights advocates and
nonprofit employees set to have their budgets and roles slashed to cure
the city’s massive shortfall, voiced their frustrations to city
supervisors.
“San Francisco was built on the backs of immigrants and working-class
communities of color, and right now, we need San Francisco to put its
money where its mouth is,” said Claire Lau, a campaign coordinator with
the Chinese Progressive Association. “We see that in all levels of
government, our social safety net is already falling apart … We need the
city to strengthen our social safety net here, right at home.”
[. . .]
The coalition is especially concerned about
reduced services for immigrants, given the recent escalation of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions throughout the state.
Lurie’s budget plan cuts $250,000 from the Office of Civic Engagement
and Immigration Affairs during its second year, and makes deep cuts to
nonprofits that serve immigrant families in need of legal support and
housing.
In recent weeks, at least 20 people
have been disappeared by ICE agents at court hearings and asylum case
check-ins in San Francisco. In Southern California, ICE agents have
arrested people at high school graduations, workplaces and gas stations.
“Immigrant families are being torn apart at schools, at workplaces,
and in communities,” Lau said. “Some are afraid to go to school, some
are afraid to go work and those who do go to work are afraid to speak up
when their rights are being violated.”
Violated now? Absolutely and about to get even worse with Florida's plan for Alligator Alcatraz.
But Orlando Democratic Congressman Maxwell Frost is angered by the plan. He has concerns about the potential living conditions.
“They
want to make a mass tent detention facility in the middle of the
Everglades, in the hot, burning Florida sun, in the swamp, and have
these people living in damn tents. It's cruel. It's a tragedy. It's
horrible, and we're gonna do everything we can to fight against it,” he
said.
Frost, who has visited other immigrant detention facilities in Florida, told WFSU he will visit it if it opens.
“I
went to Baker here in Florida unannounced, and that's a building that
has real infrastructure, and the conditions are horrible, so I can only
imagine what the conditions will be in a place that's being built up in
about a month,” he sai.d
Yesterday, we noted USA TODAY's bad typing piece on polling. Let's note a much better piece, Christian Paz (VOX) notes:
President Donald Trump is now the most unpopular he has been during his second term.
More
than half of American adults disapprove of the job he is doing, and
he’s underwater on nearly every important issue of the day.
The
polling averages show this net disapproval clearly: On the economy,
he’s down 13 percentage points. On inflation, he’s down 20 points. Even
on immigration, he’s down 2 points. (Those negative marks include
foreign policy, though it’s too soon to say how the public is reacting
to Trump’s decision to join Israel’s bombing of Iran.)
Still,
Trump’s popularity decline has been a dramatic development: After
entering office with a positive approval rating and popular support for
his agenda, he’s squandered much of it away through various political
fights, policy decisions, and public spectacles.
That
reversal has come in fits and starts, yet also demonstrated a curious
trend in Trump’s popularity. When Trump is at the center of the news,
using his bully pulpit and making high-profile efforts to pursue his
agenda, his popularity falls. When he recedes into the background, and
the public is focused elsewhere, his popularity somewhat recovers.
In
short, the more people pay attention to Trump, the less they like him —
which creates a kind of conundrum. Trump, who’s uniquely capable of
capturing the limelight, has shown he’s also incapable (or unwilling) to
do anything quietly.
We'll wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Women’s Health Protection Act comes as Trump and Congressional
Republicans move to restrict a woman’s right to choose and toward a
national abortion ban
Washington, D.C. — Today, on the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade,
U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former chair of
the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP),
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), led the entire
Senate Democratic caucus in introducing the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2025,
legislation to guarantee access to abortion everywhere across the
country and restore the right to comprehensive reproductive health care
for millions of Americans. The bill’s introduction comes as the Trump
Administration further attacks a woman’s right to choose and
Congressional Republicans barrel ahead with a bill that defunds Planned
Parenthood. Put together, Trump and Congressional Republicans’ assault
on Americans’ reproductive rights is a backdoor national abortion ban,
ripping away millions of women’s access to abortion care and right to
control their bodies.
“Three years ago, Donald Trump and Republicans succeeded in
overturning Roe, ripping away a Constitutional right for the first time
in American history, and causing a full-blown health care crisis in our
nation. Since then, we have seen with painful clarity how Republican
abortion bans are putting women’s lives in danger, forcing providers to
close their doors, decimating access to maternal health care, and
forcing women to remain pregnant—no matter their circumstances,” said Senator Murray. “I’m
proud to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Women’s Health
Protection Act to restore the right to abortion and end the national
nightmare Republicans created by overturning Roe. Democrats will never
stop fighting to restore abortion access nationwide—nothing less.”
“First, Donald Trump and Republicans overturned Roe v Wade.
Now, they are continuing their crusade for a national abortion ban,
stripping away a woman’s right to choose and control her body,
healthcare, and future. Republicans continue to show that they will stop
at nothing in their pursuit to stop a woman from having the right to
choose,” said Senator Baldwin. “In Wisconsin, we’ve
seen how these attacks on women’s reproductive rights and freedoms have
hurt our neighbors, friends, and families – and we won’t stand for it.
The Women’s Health Protection Act is a necessary step to restore
Americans’ constitutional right to choose what’s best for their
families, stop Congressional and state-level Republicans from further
putting themselves between a doctor and a woman, and once and for all,
give women their rights and freedoms back.”
“This issue is about more than health care; it is about
women’s rights, individual rights, and human rights. The foundation of
the Women’s Health Protection Act is simply the right to make your own
health care decisions. Three years after Dobbs, American women don’t
have that right. Today, thanks to Republican lawmakers and conservative
courts, a woman in America might walk into an ER and faint, bleeding,
and be refused treatment. That woman might die,” said Senator Blumenthal. “By
restoring abortion access and implementing basic protections against
medically unnecessary restrictions on health care, the Women’s Health
Protection Act overturns the death sentence handed down by Dobbs.”
President Trump appointed the Supreme Court Justices who ruled in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case to overturn Roe v. Wade and nearly 50 years of precedent. Since the Dobbs
decision, 19 states have banned abortion or severely restricted women
from being able to access the procedure, leaving one in three American
women without access to safe, legal abortion care. Additionally, state
legislatures across the country have introduced hundreds of bills to
include medically unnecessary restrictions that limit access to abortion
care.
In his second term, President Trump has continued to relentlessly
attack reproductive rights, including freezing Title X funding for
clinics that offer reproductive care, cutting Biden-era emergency
abortion protections, pardoning anti-abortion extremists, and fighting
to defund Planned Parenthood. Additionally, the House-passed Republican
budget bill kicks 16 million people off their health insurance and
defunds Planned Parenthood – threatening the closure of 200 health
centers across the country and putting access to vital reproductive care
for millions of families at risk.
The Women’s Health ProtectionAct creates federal rights for patients and providers to protect abortion access. Specifically, the Women’s Health Protection Act would:
Prohibit states from imposing restrictions that jeopardize access to
abortion earlier in pregnancy, including many of the state-level
restrictions in place prior to Dobbs, such as arbitrary waiting periods,
medically unnecessary mandatory ultrasounds, or requirements to provide
medically inaccurate information.
Ensure that later in pregnancy, states cannot limit access to abortion if it would jeopardize the life or health of the mother.
Protect the ability to travel out of state for an abortion, which has become increasingly common in recent years.
The legislation is sponsored by the entire Democratic caucus,
including Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senators Angela Alsobrooks
(D-MD), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D- DE), Cory Booker
(D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez
Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman
(D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan
(D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono
(D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King
(I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA),
Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex
Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen
(D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA),
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris
Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth
Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron
Wyden (D-OR).
