Tag Archives: Congress

Washington Post: Prosecutors push toward charging other Trump foes after Letitia James

Posted on by
Reply

With the president pressuring the Justice Department to swiftly prosecute his rivals, federal prosecutors in at least five jurisdictions are pursuing possible cases.

President Donald Trump’s unprecedented efforts to pressure the Justice Department into prosecuting his perceived enemies have, so far, netted swift results — and more may be on the way.

In a matter of only two weeks, his handpicked U.S. attorney in Alexandria, Lindsey Halligan, obtained indictments against two frequent targets: former FBI Director James B. Comey and, on Thursday, New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Federal prosecutors across the country are pursuing several other investigations, many of which Trump has personally called for. Those include investigations into a sitting U.S. senator, former top leaders of the FBI and CIA and the Georgia prosecutor who charged Trump in a massive 2020 election conspiracy case.

The next set of charges could be coming quickly. Under pressure from senior Justice Department officials, federal prosecutors in Maryland are preparing to ask a grand jury to indict John Bolton, Trump’s first-term national security adviser, in a classified documents case. Charges could come as soon as the coming week, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.

Many of Trump’s targets, including Comey, charged with lying to Congress, and James, indicted on allegations of mortgage fraud, have derided the cases against them as baseless and driven by political retribution.

Here’s what to know about where investigations of Trump’s other perceived foes stand:

John Bolton, former Trump national security adviser

Federal authorities in Maryland have been investigating Bolton, a veteran diplomat turned fierce Trump critic, since earlier this year on allegations he illegally retained classified material after his 2019 resignation.

Multiple people familiar with the evidence against him have described the case as generally stronger than those against James and Comey. Court records unsealed last month indicate that FBI agents recovered documents marked classified while searching Bolton’s downtown Washington office.

In seeking a warrant to search the facility, investigators revealed they believed they would find classified records there in part because of information they learned through a foreign adversary hacking into Bolton’s AOL email account years ago.

Kelly O. Hayes, acting U.S. attorney in Maryland, a veteran federal prosecutor whom the Trump administration elevated to the office’s top job this year, is overseeing the case. The prosecution is being led by Tom Sullivan, who heads the national security and cyber divisions in Hayes’s office. Sullivan was previously part of the special counsel team that investigated former president Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents in 2023.

Bolton’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has said the documents marked classified found in Bolton’s office stem from his time in the administration of George W. Bush and had been cleared for his use decades ago.

“An objective and thorough review will show nothing inappropriate was stored or kept by Amb. Bolton,” Lowell said in a statement.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California)

Schiff, a vocal Trump critic who led the House investigation that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment, is facing investigation on mortgage fraud allegations similar to those lodged Thursday against James.

Both inquiries were initiated by criminal referrals from Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and pursued by Ed Martin, a former interim U.S. attorney in Washington turned Justice Department official.

In recent weeks, Martin has met with Hayes, the Maryland U.S. attorney, who is also overseeing the investigation of the senator, to discuss the progress of the investigation.

The inquiry is centered on Pulte’s assertion that Schiff misled lenders while buying a second home in Potomac in 2003 by claiming the property would be his primary residence.

Schiff and his lawyer — former Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara — dismiss Pulte’s claims as politically motivated, “transparently false, stale and long debunked.” Bharara privately wrote to the Justice Department in July arguing there was “no factual basis” for those claims and provided documentation to exonerate the senator.

Schiff’s mortgage lender was aware from the start that he and his wife were buying the Maryland house so his family could live there when he was working in Washington, Bharara wrote, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The Washington Post. To convict Schiff of mortgage fraud, prosecutors would have to prove that Schiff intended to deceive.

Still, after James’ indictment this week, Schiff is now bracing for the prospect that he could be indicted within a matter of weeks, according to two people familiar with his thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

“Those of us on the president’s enemies list — and it is a long and growing list — will not be intimidated, we will not be deterred,” the senator told reporters Thursday. “We will do our jobs. We will stand up to this president.”

Lisa Cook, Federal Reserve governor

Federal prosecutors in Georgia are also pursuing a mortgage fraud investigation targeting Cook, the Biden-appointed Federal Reserve governor whom Trump is seeking to fire from the central bank.

Last month, investigators issued subpoenas as part of the inquiry, which began with a referral from Pulte, and Martin has conferred with law enforcement officials in the state. Pulte has accused Cook of claiming both a home in Michigan and a condominium in Georgia as “primary residences” on mortgage applications.

Cook’s lawyers deny she committed a crime and have suggested in court papers that she “mislabeled” her homes in her mortgage applications.

John Brennan, former CIA director

The Justice Department acknowledged in July that it had opened an investigation into Obama-era CIA director John Brennan, one of many targets the president has said should be prosecuted for involvement in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

John Ratcliffe, the current CIA director, and Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, referred Brennan and others, including Comey, to the Justice Department. They alleged that Brennan and others manipulated a 2017 intelligence assessment to wrongly tie the Trump campaign to Moscow’s efforts and later lied about it to Congress.

In recent weeks, federal investigators in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have conducted some interviews as part of the investigation, though its full scope remains unclear, one person familiar with its progress said.

One other current and one former official familiar with the matter suggested Gabbard may have undermined the investigation’s progress. Earlier this year, she publicly revoked the security clearances of 37 people who had been drafting the 2017 intelligence assessment, accusing them of politicizing intelligence and failing to safeguard classified information.

Her comments may have damaged their credibility as witnesses in any potential case against Brennan, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the ongoing investigation.

FBI officials under former director Christopher A. Wray

In a separate investigation centered on the 2016 election, federal authorities in the Roanoke-based Western District of Virginia are investigating claims that senior bureau officials under former FBI director Christopher A. Wray mishandled or sought to destroy documents related to the Russia investigation.

That inquiry appears to have been sparked by allegations first floated by current FBI Director Kash Patel, who said in July he had discovered thousands of pages of records in “burn bags” at the bureau’s headquarters in Washington. He has suggested they were placed there to cover up wrongdoing by his predecessors at the FBI.

Some of those records — linked to an investigation by special counsel John Durham about the origins of the Russia investigation — have since been released by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Current and former national security officials have questioned the premise of Patel’s allegations, noting that many of the records he claims to have uncovered had also been stored on government computer servers for years.

Fani T. Willis, Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney

The New York Times reported last month that the Justice Department had issued a subpoena for travel records of Willis, the Atlanta-area prosecutor who brought a sprawling racketeering case against the president and more than a dozen allies, accusing them of illegally seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia.

The investigation of Willis is being overseen by Theodore S. Hertzberg, the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. But the scope of the inquiry remains unclear — including which records were subpoenaed and from whom.

The Times reported that the subpoena sought information tied to overseas trips Willis took around the time of the 2024 election. But Willis had not personally received a subpoena, her spokesman Jeff DiSantis said.

Trump has railed against Willis since her office charged him in 2023, calling his prosecution a “witch hunt.” The case remains the only remaining criminal matter in which Trump is charged, though Willis and her office are no longer leading the prosecution.

Last month, the Georgia Supreme Court denied Willis’s appeal of a lower court decision that removed her and her office from the proceedings after she was accused of an improper relationship with an outside attorney she appointed to the lead the case.

A state agency is now looking for a new prosecutor to take on the case. Willis has acknowledged she would likely continue to be a target of the president and his supporters.

“I am fully aware that there will be people in power over the next four years who may seek to use that power to lash out at those who are working to uphold the rule of law,” Willis told The Post in January. “I will not be intimidated by threats or acts of revenge.”

Prosecutors push toward charging other Trump foes after Letitia James

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prosecutors-push-toward-charging-other-trump-foes-after-letitia-james/ar-AA1OgMRK

USA Today: ‘Keep your mouth shut.’ Tempers flare in the Capitol with no shutdown solution in sight

Posted on by
Reply

The House minority leader yelled at a Republican congressman to “keep (his) mouth shut.” And that’s just the start of it.

Two weeks into a government shutdown with no end in sight, tensions are high and getting hotter among the people with the power to the end it.

At the U.S. Capitol this week, two Democratic senators confronted the Republican speaker of the House outside his office, accusing him of “covering up for pedophiles” by avoiding a vote to release more information on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

On the same day, the Democratic House minority leader separately yelled at a Republican congressman to “keep your mouth shut.” And that’s just the start of it.

The testy scenes underscore an increasingly bitter rapport between America’s two major political parties, as the first government shutdown in seven years approaches the start of a third week. Lawmakers were making little effort to resolve their differences in public. The House of Representatives has not taken a vote in more than three weeks and the Senate has yet to work through a weekend since funding lapsed at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

At the same time, the stakes of the shutdown are rising. On Wednesday, Oct. 15, military service members will miss their first paycheck since the shutdown crisis began. Funding for a key food aid program relied on by millions of mothers and infants will likely run out of money in the coming days. And key economic data needed to calculate Social Security payments for more than 70 million Americans next year doesn’t seem to be coming anytime soon.

Members of Congress say they are starting to feel the pressure. “I’m trying to muster every ounce of Christian charity that I can,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said of dealing with the Democrats.

“It’s bare knuckles in this fight,” added Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-California.

Senators confront speaker

On Wednesday, Oct. 8, two Democratic senators from Arizona were complaining about Johnson outside his office.

That’s when the speaker emerged and walked toward the senators, Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly, who then criticized him over refusing to swear in a new Democratic congresswoman from their state during the shutdown.

Once Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva officially takes office, they pointed out, she’ll likely deliver the final vote needed to pass a measure forcing the Justice Department to publicly release more Epstein files.

The senators accused Johnson of keeping members of the House of Representatives away from the Capitol in order to delay the Epstein vote.

“We’re going to do that as soon as we get back to work. But we need the lights turned back on,” Johnson told them, according to video from the news outlet NOTUS. “You guys are experts in red herrings … This has nothing to do with Epstein.”

“You just keep coming up with excuses,” Gallego fired back.

The fiery exchange drew the attention of security guards, staffers and reporters, many of whom stood nearby, phones drawn, watching intently. It ended with all three politicians talking over each at the same time. Video of the encounter spread online.

Johnson drew even more heat when he took calls on C-SPAN the next morning. A rotation of frustrated Americans criticized him for failing to negotiate a solution to the shutdown. One caller in particular, a woman who said she was a military wife in northern Virginia who lives paycheck-to-paycheck, told the speaker of the House that her “kids could die” if troops go without pay.

Top Democrat to congressman: ‘Keep your mouth shut’

In another acrimonious scene the same day, a conversation between a Republican congressman and the leader of House Democrats devolved into a shouting match.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-New York, confronted House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, about his refusal to support a one-year extension of expiring health insurance subsidies, which are at the center of the shutdown fight.

“It’s sad,” Lawler said, holding up a copy of a proposed bill to continue the subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits.

“Why don’t you just keep your mouth shut,” Jeffries said.

The ruckus drew a gaggle of onlookers, many of whom filmed the interaction, which went viral afterward. Talking to reporters after the fracas, Lawler said Democrats are “so full of (expletive), it’s not even funny.”

At a Cabinet meeting in the White House the next day, President Donald Trump weighed in on the shutdown with a series of jabs at the political oppoisiton. “We really don’t know who the hell is leading the Democrats,” Trump said.

Glimmers of bipartisanship

There are still some glimmers of bipartisanship in the halls of the Capitol.

Senators on both sides of the aisle are still talking to each other. Back-channel conversations continue among lawmakers on a potential health care deal that could help bring Democrats around to voting to reopen the government, though Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, described those negotiations this week as “stalled.”

Likewise, Gallego gave the GOP some credit. “I’ve been talking to my Republican friends,” he told reporters. “They do want to figure out a way out.”

‘Keep your mouth shut’ Tempers flare over shutdown with no end in sight
As the government shutdown heads toward impacting regular Americans with missed military paychecks, lawmakers are yelling and name-calling.

http://usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/11/government-shutdown-trump-democrats/86608206007/

The Hill: Opinion: Wake up, MAGA: Trump’s disapproval rating is a real problem

Posted on by
Reply

In recent months more than one friend has said to me “Don’t you think Trump is doing great?” On each occasion my friend seemed perplexed when I say “No, he is not doing great.” 

When I get into the reasons — management style, rhetoric, policies and the constant self massaging of an outsized and out of control ego — my friends are further perplexed. Talk about Trump’s numbers in the polls invariably leads to a counterpunch that the polls are always wrong or that a specific poll is rigged to make Trump look bad.

So for all my MAGA friends who think things are going great, let’s put some facts on the record. This is not about one poll from an organization that leans left. This is about multiple polls from multiple respected outlets. 

This is undoubtedly where American public opinion is, and MAGA and the White House needs to accept it and change accordingly. Failure to do so will effectively end the Trump administration with Democratic majorities in the Congress issuing subpoenas on a daily basis.

The current state of the Democratic Party is the best thing Republicans have going for us as we approach the 2026 midterm election. High-ranking elected Democratic officials seem incapable of coherently and concisely explaining what their party stands for. Vehement opposition to everything Trump says or does is not a winning message. 

In a normal political environment, Republicans would be staring at a disastrous showing. Lucky for them 2026, as of now, does not look like it is going to be a normal political environment. I would caution my fellow Republicans that placing our electoral destiny in the hands of our opponents and hoping they continue to screw up is not a strategy with which any of us should be comfortable.

The president’s overall approval in the polls is consistently underwater, meaning his disapproval exceeds his approval. That would not be terribly concerning until you dig into the specifics as to why that is. 

Many polls ask if respondents approve or disapprove on the economy, inflation, tariffs, immigration, deportations, crime control, national guard in cities. On all of those specific policy issues Trump is underwater, on most questions significantly, meaning a majority disapprove.

I am not talking about one poll here where the pro and anti-Trump split is close. The polls are close to unanimous on the lack of popularity of Trump administration policies. 

Outside of border control, for which Trump deserves great credit and liberals still do not understand was a major factor in their 2024 defeat, Trump’s actions and policies do not receive majority support. In fact, they are not close to earning majority support.

In the September Washington Post poll, 70 percent of respondents said tariffs are increasing the prices they pay for basic necessities. Seventy percent! Also in that same poll, by a margin of 59 percent to 40 percent, respondents disapprove of how Trump is handling the economy. That 70 percent is referring to the tariffs which are the basis of the Trump administration’s economic plan for America.

Hello: Is anyone in the White House awake?

Part of Trump’s problem is that when he talks about the economy, he talks about how tariffs will be great for American consumers. What he sees as positive voters overwhelmingly see as a negative. Trump’s overall lack of attention to the economy, inflation and consumer sentiment is a huge negative for the administration.

The administration’s political success depends a lot more on the price of coffee and ground beef than it does on Jimmy Kimmel’s latest stupid comment. The Trump administration requires a significant mid-course correction.

The president’s predisposition is to take things to the extreme. When he does that with his rhetoric, Americans can laugh it off. When he does that with policy it is more difficult to write it off.

President Trump sees himself as an agent of change who wants to change America into his likeness. Americans are not buying the president’s vision of what he wants the future to have in store for them.

Constitutional conservatives are sounding alarm bells about the administration’s effort to suppress criticism. The White House and its MAGA supporters need to cut back on their goals, and especially their tactics, and soon.

As President Reagan used to say “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”

Trump needs to quickly recalibrate his desires down from 100 percent to 80 percent. If he fails to do so, MAGA will fade into political history alongside the Square Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and a Thousand Points of Light, none of which left America with anything resembling an identifiable political constituency.

Wake up, MAGA: Trump’s disapproval rating is a real problem
This is undoubtedly where American public opinion is, and MAGA and the White House needs to accept it and change accordingly.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5545377-trump-approval-rating-decline

Slingshot News: ‘The Best Physical Specimen Of The Three’: Trump Gets Lost In His Delusions, Believes He’s ‘Healthier’ Than Bush And Obama

Posted on by
Reply

During his remarks at Naval Station Norfolk yesterday, Donald Trump praised disgraced doctor and Congressman Ronnie Jackson (R-TX) for publicly stating that he’s healthier than former Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama.

‘The Best Physical Specimen Of The Three’: Trump Gets Lost In His Delusions, Believes He’s ‘Healthier’ Than Bush And Obama
During his remarks at Naval Station Norfolk yesterday, Donald Trump praised disgraced doctor and Congressman Ronnie Jackson (R-TX) for publicly stating that he’s healthier than former Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-best-physical-specimen-of-the-three-trump-gets-lost-in-his-delusions-believes-he-s-healthier-than-bush-and-obama/vi-AA1NWuOs

Slingshot News: ‘I Disagree With That!’: Linda McMahon Runs Her Motor Mouth When Exposed For Stealing Aid From Low-Income Students In Senate Hearing

Posted on by
Reply

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing several months ago, Education Secretary Linda McMahon rambled on with her excuses when Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) exposed her for dismantling the Department of Education’s TRIO programs. 

‘I Disagree With That!’: Linda McMahon Runs Her Motor Mouth When Exposed For Stealing Aid From Low-Income Students In Senate Hearing
During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing several months ago, Education Secretary Linda McMahon rambled on with her excuses when Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) exposed her for dismantling the Department of Education’s TRIO programs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/peopleandplaces/i-disagree-with-that-linda-mcmahon-runs-her-motor-mouth-when-exposed-for-stealing-aid-from-low-income-students-in-senate-hearing/vi-AA1NR5sn

SFGATE: Pete Hegseth is f—king embarrassing

Posted on by
Reply

SFGATE columnist Drew Magary on America’s secretary of war

Pete Hegseth! Remember that guy? Former Fox News weirdo? Famous for drinking on the job? Accused of sexual assault before paying a settlement to make that lawsuit go away? Tapped to head the Department of Defense and then accidentally texted his war plans to the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic? Oh yes, I think you’re quite familiar with Hegseth. He’s a real asshole! And an embarrassing one, too!

Well, guess what? The leaders of our armed forces also got to know this brave, pickled s—t for brains. In case you’ve stopped reading the news because it makes you want to seek out the sturdiest rafter in your basement, President Donald Trump and Hegseth summoned the top brass of the American military to Quantico, Virginia, on Tuesday for an all-hands meeting. This would be a super cool idea in, say, a “Mission: Impossible” movie. In real life, it’s a conference call that could have been an email. S—t, Hegseth is already a veteran of blasting out group messages for doing war. But using secure channels to issue directives means that Hegseth wouldn’t get to be seen issuing them. And in Donald Trump’s government, being seen is all that matters. So let’s see Hegseth rallying the troops on Tuesday and feel inspired!

Yes, the man in charge of our newly rechristened Department of War really took the stage in front of a bunch of seasoned, professional, high-ranking officers and proceeded to go epic bacon mode. Here’s the showstopper line from that clip:

“Should our enemies choose foolishly to challenge us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision and ferocity of the War Department. In other words, to our enemies, FAFO. If necessary, our troops can translate that for you.”

(sigh) It stands for “F—k around and find out.” What a powerful message to send. Because until Trump took office, we all know that other countries were like, “You know, the Americans seem pretty chill. I bet they’d never violently overreact to any perceived slight!”

I wish that this were the only cringe-worthy thing that Hegseth said to the crowd on Tuesday. But this is 2025, where wishes are zip-tied and forcefully deported to El Salvador. So Hegseth took the opportunity to deliver a full speech of cringe to our troops; a sort of “F—k you for your service” message that surely left all of the men and women in that room confident that their new boss totally knows what he’s doing. With that in mind, I collected a few more choice passages from Hegseth’s address for your perusal so that you and I can say “F—k you” right back to him. Let’s hear more!

“You see, this urgent moment of course requires more troops, more munitions, more drones, more Patriots, more submarines, more B-21 bombers. It requires more innovation, more AI in everything and ahead of the curve, more cyber effects, more counter UAS, more space, more speed.”

Just last month, Congress passed a funding bill for Hegseth’s department that clocked in at nearly $900 billion, a record high. I think that number allows for all the munitions, drones and robot sharks our military could possibly need. Then again, shouldn’t there be more AI in there, so that a drone pilot can take a pee-pee break while WarGPT detects and neutralizes a threat coming from Afgharistad? 

“Our warfighters are entitled to be led by the best and most capable leaders.”

Does that mean you’re resigning? Because that would probably do the trick.

“That is who we need you all to be. Even then, in combat, even if you do everything right, you may still lose people because the enemy always gets a vote.”

Just in case you were thrown by the vagueness here, “the enemy” in question is a gay voter.

“The military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things. … You might say we’re ending the war on warriors. I heard someone wrote a book about that.”

He did. Pete Hegseth wrote that book. Stick around after having your job threatened and he’ll sign YOUR copy! And you should stick around, because for far too long, this country has been far too hostile to its “warfighters.” Why just this past weekend, I watched NFL league officials burn a flag before kickoff between the Packers and Cowboys, and then kick every member of the color guard square in the crotch! Disgusting!

“For too long, we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons, based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called firsts.”

I can’t believe we promoted BLACKS to higher ranks. Did Jackie Robinson really die for this?

“We became the woke department.”

So true. Remember when they painted the Pentagon rainbow colors for Pride month?

“This administration has done a great deal from day one to remove the social justice, politically correct, and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department, to rip out the politics.”

How’d you do it, Pete?

“No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses.”

Oh thank God. No more trans in uniform! That’s diluting our killforce with politics! You can’t hunt down Osama bin Laden using a gender-neutral latrine!

“No more climate change worship.”

Finally, I can stop worshipping the false idol that is the only inhabitable planet in the known universe. Earth: What it is good for?

“No more division, distraction or gender delusions. No more debris. As I’ve said before and will say again, we are done with that s—t.”

OMG HE SWORE! This guy isn’t some namby-pamby sissy boy! He’s like Axl Rose!

“The new War Department golden rule is this: do unto your unit as you would have done unto your own child’s unit. Would you want him serving with fat or unfit or under trained troops or alongside people who can’t meet basic standards, or in a unit where standards were lowered so certain types of troops could make it in, in a unit where leaders were promoted for reasons other than merit, performance and warfighting? The answer is not just no, it’s hell no.”

When I was in middle school, I had a T-shirt that said HELL NO TO FAT CHICKS. So I’m glad to see Secretary Pete is fully aligned with my values. And he’s not done taking it to our fattest service members! Give ’em hell, sir!

“It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the secretary of war can do regular hard PT, so can every member of our joint force. Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are.”

This part makes perfect sense when you remember that President Lard wants everyone working for him to be hot enough to appear on television. If you’re a general in our army, and you’re not on an aggressive HGH regimen, or you’re unable to rock a pair of stiletto heels that makes Rupert Murdoch harder than an AP exam, you’re OUT.

“Also today, at my direction, every warrior across our joint force is required to do PT every duty day. It should be common sense, and most units do that already, but we’re codifying it. And we’re not talking, like, hot yoga and stretching.”

We’re not talking about QUEER physical training. And if you ask for avocado toast at the mess hall, that’s five months in the brig.

“This also means grooming standards. No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We’re going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards.”

Has this idiot met the vice president? Because JD Vance has a beard for FM radio. 

“Because it’s like the broken windows theory in policing. It’s like you let the small stuff go, the big stuff eventually goes, so you have to address the small stuff.”

The broken windows theory was discredited many years ago and served largely as a template for then-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani to send turnstile jumpers directly to the electric chair.

“This is on duty, in the field and in the rear. If you want a beard, you can join Special Forces. If not, then shave. No more beardos. … The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done.”

Damn, he hit JD with the “beardo” tag. No coming back from that. Anyway, I appreciate the War Department instituting a no facial hair policy right after the New York Yankees abandoned theirs (the Yankees stranded three runners in the bottom of the ninth Tuesday night and lost 3-1 to the hated Boston Red Sox).

“The definition of toxic has been turned upside down, and we’re correcting that. … We’re talking about words like bullying and hazing and toxic.”

The war on hazing is over! And just to make certain that bullies and hazers can flourish in the new Department of War, Hegseth and his boss are making it easier for enlistees to squeal on their commanding officers if those officers go toxic (woke)! Just like in the good old days! In fact, Hegseth now has a process for determining if you’re sufficiently old-school, and it’s rooted in hard science!

“Here are two basic frameworks I urge you to pursue in this process … the 1990 test and the E-6 test. The 1990 test is simple. What were the military standards in 1990? And if they have changed, tell me why.”

Because it’s 35 years later? Because American morale in 1990 was so low that Kurt Cobain was able to turn that ennui into culture-altering music?

“Was it a necessary change based on the evolving landscape of combat, or was the change due to a softening, weakening or gender-based pursuit of other priorities? 1990 seems to be as good a place to start as any.”

Here’s a random year that Pete drew out of a hat. BE MORE LIKE THIS YEAR. LISTEN TO MORE TRIXTER.

“Of course, being a racist has been illegal in our formation since 1948. The same goes for sexual harassment. Both are wrong and illegal. Those kinds of infractions will be ruthlessly enforced.”

BUT …?!

“But telling someone to shave or get a haircut or to get in shape or to fix their uniform or to show up on time, to work hard, that’s exactly the kind of discrimination we want.”

We will NOT tolerate discrimination in our ranks. Unless you’re fat, or weak, or gay, or trans, or a woman reporting sexual assault, or you have that sort of dirtbag goatee that every liquor store clerk has.

“We know mistakes will be made. It’s the nature of leadership.”

Like when you texted war plans to the Atlantic, yeah?

“But you should not pay for earnest mistakes for your entire career. And that’s why today, at my direction, we’re making changes to the retention of adverse information on personnel records that will allow leaders with forgivable earnest or minor infractions to not be encumbered by those infractions in perpetuity.”

All of you are entitled to violate a maximum three of your subordinates with a broomstick. If you need these violations to wage war properly, so be it.

“An entire generation of generals and admirals were told that they must parrot the insane fallacy that ‘our diversity is our strength.’ … They were told females and males are the same thing, or that males who think they’re females is totally normal. They were told that we need a green fleet and electric tanks. They were told to kick out Americans who refused an emergency vaccine.”

I will NOT stand here and let the department of woke discriminate against any soldier willing to infect his entire platoon with smallpox!

“We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters.”

This was always the goal of conservatives decrying political correctness and wokeness. They didn’t just want license to treat nonwhite, non-hetero, non-males like garbage. They wanted license to abuse and to kill them should those people ever dare to pilot a boat. This ambition was clear during Trump’s first administration, when he pardoned former Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who used his position as a sniper to gun down innocent Iraqis at random, Amon Goeth-style. SecWar Pete would now like all of our troops to Be Like Eddie. So don’t let the wokescolds tell you that killing is “wrong.” God, those people are such tight-asses!

“Today is another liberation day, the liberation of America’s warriors, in name, in deed and in authorities. You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don’t necessarily belong always in polite society.”

I know I feel better when the man tasked with supervising the most lethal military in world history addresses his charges like they’re the prisoners from “Con Air.” Like Trump, Hegseth delivers this speech as if he’s starring in his own biopic. You can hear him waiting for a standing ovation that never comes, and it’s pathetic. This meeting served only the secretary’s whiskey-addled daydreams, and not a single active member of our armed forces. Many of the quotes you read above will be etched in stone one day, on a monument that will be torn down by a joyous protest mob.

This has been a deeply embarrassing time to be an American, and somehow Pete Hegseth has made that embarrassment even more pronounced. I bet all of the men and women and gender-fluid people (I’m woke, deal with it) in that room on Tuesday were also embarrassed. These people enlisted out of love for their country, and to do something valuable with their lives. Now they have to take orders from a narcissistic lunatic who wants them to cut weight so they can kill and pillage more efficiently. It’s disgraceful. It’s also just so, so uncomfortable. I wanna bury myself alive when I read all of this dogs—t.

At least Hegseth, toward the end of his speech, gave those same hardworking Americans an out:

“If the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign. We would thank you for your service.”

That’s actually a threat, because this administration knows only how to speak in threats. But you know what? I say you folks should call the man’s bluff. Please, all of you, resign. Quit your jobs. Don’t work another second for this corrupt department. Pete Hegseth spent all of Tuesday f—king around with our service members. Time for him to find out.

Pete Hegseth is f—king embarrassing
SFGATE columnist Drew Magary on America’s secretary of war.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/pete-hegseth-is-embarrassing-21078716.php

Knewz: Trump admin MAGA loyalists turn on each other

Posted on by
Reply

FBI Director Kash Patel has come under fire with top officials in President Donald Trump’s administration amid claims U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi “can’t stand him.” Alongside that allegation, former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey was just installed at Patel’s embattled agency as co-deputy FBI director alongside Dan Bongino in the wake of growing Patel backlash, Knewz.com can reveal.

Tensions abound

Trump tapped Bailey to help run the FBI, sharing the role of second-in-command with Co-Deputy Director Bongino — a Trump loyalist who recently clashed with other administration officials over the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of a review of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The change comes at a time Patel is under fire over recent mistakes. “The White House, Bondi [and Deputy Attorney General Todd] Blanche have no confidence in Kash. Pam in particular cannot stand him. Blanche either,” a source told Fox News. Bondi and Blanche denied the allegations, and the White House denied plans to strip Patel of his role.

Questioning Patel’s leadership

Within the last few months, particularly following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, questions have been swirling about Patel’s position and leadership. Patel recently faced off with lawmakers during back-to-back appearances before Congress as elected officials questioned him about his decisions and performance following Kirk’s murder, which saw multiple people erroneously arrested early in the investigation. Trump, however, had a different take on the way the manhunt for Kirk’s shooter ended. “I am very proud of the FBI. Kash — and everyone else — they have done a great job,” Trump said.

Patel backlash

Despite Trump’s praise, on social media, many commenters have been urging Patel to step down from his position. “What do you guys think about Kash Patel as head of FBI? I think he needs to step down. The former Attorney General of Missouri Andrew Bailey is being sworn in as a co-deputy director. Maybe he can do better,” wrote one commenter. Another said, “Kash Patel is an incompetent fool who needs to step down from his leadership position.” Yet another said, “I’m very confused [and] disappointed over Kash Patel’s contribution so far. If he can’t [handle] his assignment, he has to step down because this is not good enough. As for Pam Bondi, shouldn’t she be sitting more behind her desk instead of being around President Trump all the time?”

FBI criticism

Many social media users also slammed Patel and the FBI for their performance after the Kirk shooting suspect’s father turned him in to authorities. Once the manhunt for Kirk’s alleged killer, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, came to an end, one online commenter lamented, “Took 3 days to find the shooter. Didn’t find shooter. Shooter’s father turned him in. Faith won’t let [Patel] say Heaven so he said, ‘See you in Valhalla, Charlie.’ Should Kash Patel be forced to step down?” Another echoed a similar sentiment, writing, “Patel and Bongino need to step down. At least Kash for sure, this has been a s*** show. I’m no fan of Kirk’s but still want justice.”

Trump admin MAGA loyalists turn on each other – NewsBreak
FBI Director Kash Patel has come under fire with top officials in President Donald Trump’s administration amid claims U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi “can’

https://www.newsbreak.com/knewz-1594593/4254512519901-trump-admin-maga-loyalists-turn-on-each-other

MSNBC: Supreme Court issues ruling on Trump’s power to fire FTC commissioner without cause

Posted on by
Reply

Chief Justice John Roberts had previously blocked the reinstatement of the agency’s lone Democratic commissioner whom Trump sought to fire.

The Supreme Court has backed President Donald Trump’s power to fire the lone Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission without cause, agreeing at the same time to consider overturning a longstanding precedent that has protected independent agencies.

The high court’s three Democratic appointees dissented from the decision Monday to lift a lower court order that sided with the commissioner, Rebecca Slaughter, while litigation proceeds. The high court’s order said the justices will hear oral argument in the case during its December argument session.

“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the three Democratic appointees, calling out how the Republican-appointed majority has helped Trump in this and other cases in his second term. “Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers,” she wrote.

Monday’s order follows Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision on Sept. 8 to temporarily halt Slaughter’s reinstatement while the full Supreme Court considered whether she should be reinstated while litigation over her firing continued. That word from the full court came Monday, as the majority sided with Trump ahead of the December hearing and, in doing so, signaled that it will side with him in its final decision. The court, whose next term starts in early October, typically issues the term’s decisions by early July, meaning a final decision in the Slaughter case should come by then next year.

In July, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s attempt to fire Slaughter was unlawful. A divided appellate panel refused to lift the judge’s order on Sept. 2, citing the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent that endorsed for-cause removal protections. The Roberts Court has weakened that precedent, and the Trump administration has targeted it. The precedent arose in the context of the FTC specifically, raising the possibility that the justices could overturn it outright in Slaughter’s case.

The Supreme Court’s order Monday said the justices want the parties to brief and argue these two questions, specifically naming the 90-year-old precedent:

(1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.

Dissenting from the appellate panel’s Sept. 2 refusal to lift U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan’s order, Trump appointee Neomi Rao acknowledged the Humphrey’s precedent but noted that the Supreme Court has been siding with Trump on his firing powers lately. In any event, the district judge was powerless to order Slaughter’s reinstatement, Rao wrote.

The administration cited Rao’s dissent in seeking to lift AliKhan’s order, casting the case as the latest in Trump’s second term to warrant relief from lower court overreach. “In this case, the lower courts have once again ordered the reinstatement of a high-level officer wielding substantial executive authority whom the President has determined should not exercise any executive power, let alone significant rulemaking and enforcement powers,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote to the justices on Sept. 4. Sauer asked the justices to lift AliKhan’s order immediately.

Opposing even a temporary pause in the judge’s order (which Roberts granted Sept. 8), Slaughter’s lawyers said the government wouldn’t be harmed by her continuing to serve while the administration’s application to the justices is pending. They sought to distinguish recent cases in which the court sided with the administration by noting that Slaughter “is the sole Democratic member on a Commission with a three-Republican majority,” so her presence on the FTC wouldn’t result in any meaningful action opposed by the majority.

On Sept. 15, her lawyers further wrote that Congress hadn’t granted Trump the broad power he claims and that if he “is to be given new powers Congress has expressly and repeatedly refused to give him, that decision should come from the people’s elected representatives.” They further argued that “[a]t a minimum, any such far-reaching decision to reverse a considered congressional policy judgment should not be made on the emergency docket,” referring to the court’s rulings made without full briefing, hearing or explanation, which have frequently helped Trump in his second term. It’s the majority’s use of the docket in this way that Kagan and the Democratic appointees called out on Monday.

Supreme Court issues ruling on Trump’s power to fire FTC commissioner without cause
Chief Justice John Roberts had previously blocked the reinstatement of the agency’s lone Democratic commissioner whom Trump sought to fire.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-ftc-commissioner-fire-cause-trump-rcna231388

Newsweek: Elena Kagan warns Supreme Court “overriding” Congress to give Trump a win

Posted on by
Reply

ustice Elena Kagan warned Monday that the Supreme Court is “overriding” Congress to hand President Donald Trump sweeping new powers over independent agencies.

Her dissent came after the court, in a 6-3 decision, allowed Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter while the justices consider whether to overturn a 90-year-old precedent limiting presidential removals.

The conservative majority offered no explanation, as is typical on its emergency docket, but signaled a willingness to revisit the landmark 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling.

Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the court has repeatedly cleared firings that Congress explicitly prohibited, thereby shifting control of key regulatory agencies into the president’s hands.

“Congress, as everyone agrees, prohibited each of those presidential removals,” Kagan wrote. “Yet the majority, stay order by stay order, has handed full control of all those agencies to the President.”

Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email on Monday afternoon.

Why It Matters

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly faced decisions regarding Trump’s use of his powers since his return to the White House in January. Cases have included attempts to fire large swaths of the federal government workforce, as well as changes to immigration policy and cuts to emergency relief funding, with arguments that it is Congress, not the president, that holds such powers.

What To Know

Monday’s decision is the latest high-profile firing the court has allowed in recent months, signaling the conservative majority is poised to overturn or narrow a 1935 Supreme Court decision that found commissioners can only be removed for misconduct or neglect of duty.

The justices are expected to hear arguments in December over whether to overturn a 90-year-old ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor.

In that case, the court sided with another FTC commissioner who had been fired by Franklin D. Roosevelt as the president worked to implement the New Deal. The justices unanimously found that commissioners can be removed only for misconduct or neglect of duty.

That 1935 decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination and public airwaves. However, it has long rankled conservative legal theorists, who argue that such agencies should answer to the president.

The Justice Department argues that Trump can fire board members for any reason as he seeks to implement his agenda. However, Slaughter’s attorneys argue that regulatory decisions will be influenced more by politics than by the expertise of board members if the president can fire congressionally confirmed board members at will.

“If the President is to be given new powers Congress has expressly and repeatedly refused to give him, that decision should come from the people’s elected representatives,” they argued.

The court will hear arguments unusually early in the process, before the case has fully worked its way through lower courts.

The court rejected a push from two other board members of independent agencies who had asked the justices to also hear their cases if they took up the Slaughter case: Gwynne Wilcox, of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The FTC is a regulator enforcing consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. The NLRB investigates unfair labor practices and oversees union elections, while the MSPB reviews disputes from federal workers.

What People Are Saying

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote: “The President and the government suffer irreparable harm when courts transfer even some of that executive power to officers beyond the President’s control.”

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent: “The majority may be raring to take that action, as its grant of certiorari before judgment suggests. But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, in an amicus brief filed in Trump v. Slaughter: “Because the President’s limited authority to temporarily withhold funds proposed for rescission under the ICA does not permit the President to withhold those funds through their date of expiration without action from Congress, the district court’s injunction imposes no greater burden on the government than already exists under that law. The stakes for Congress and the public, however, are high. The fiscal year ends on September 30, less than three weeks from today.”

What Happens Next

The court has already allowed the president to fire all three board members for now. The court has suggested, however, that the president’s power to fire may have limits at the Federal Reserve, a prospect that is expected to be tested in the case of fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook.

Elena Kagan warns Supreme Court “overriding” Congress to give Trump a win
Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, said the court has repeatedly cleared firings that Congress prohibited.

https://www.newsweek.com/kagan-supreme-court-congress-trump-win-ftc-2133934

Reason: What Does It Mean for Trump To Designate Antifa a ‘Terrorist Organization’?

Posted on by
Reply

America doesn’t have an official list of domestic terrorist organizations, but the declaration could mean heavier political surveillance and RICO prosecutions.

President Donald Trump announced in a social media post on Wednesday night that he is “designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.” He made the same declaration in 2020 amid the Black Lives Matter protests against the police killing of George Floyd, with no real effect on the ground.

But Trump’s new declaration came with another, more specific order: “I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices.” And that may be the real significance of his decision.

There is no such thing as a domestic terrorist organization list in the United States. When Congress debated the first counterterrorism legislation in the 1990s, the Clinton administration and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) pushed for sweeping domestic police powers. It was Republicans who opposed those measures at the time because they worried that counterterrorism would be weaponized against the right.

As a compromise, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 only allowed the government to designate and ban foreign terrorist organizations. The first Trump administration reportedly tried to paint Antifa as a foreign organization by pointing to Antifa activists who fought for Kurdish militias in Syria. The problem is that the same Kurdish militias were also allied with the U.S. military, which introduced a foreign policy complication.

The current administration could try to use the Palestinian solidarity movement to paint the left as foreign terrorists. Both Republican politicians and the ADL have tried to imply that student protesters are materially connected to Hamas. As with the Kurdish connection, however, the Palestinian connection to Antifa is fairly stretched.

During the 2020 unrest, then–Attorney General Bill Barr also reportedly told prosecutors to consider using the “seditious conspiracy” law against rioters. The law, passed during the Civil War to round up Confederate guerrillas, punishes any group of people that violently opposes the authority of the U.S. government. The government did not end up pursuing those charges.

The most obvious measure is one that Trump has already hinted at using: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. After protesters disrupted Trump’s dinner last week, Trump told reporters that he asked the attorney general “to look into that in terms of RICO, bringing RICO cases against them. Criminal RICO. Because they should be put in jail, what they’re doing to this country is really subversive.”

Originally designed to go after the mafia, the RICO Act allows prosecutors to charge an entire organization for criminal behaviors. In September 2023, the state of Georgia tried to use its own state-level RICO law to prosecute members of Stop Cop City, a protest movement against a new police training center. A judge threw out the charges last week.

As many critics have pointed out, Antifa doesn’t exist—at least not as a centralized organization. Anti-fascist is a label that many different left-wing and anarchist activists around the country have adopted, along with similar tactics and aesthetics. But the vagueness of the label can help rather than hinder the Trump administration, if its goal is to crack down on political enemies.

The RICO Act allows prosecutors to define more or less anything they want as a mafia organization, and the charges are nearly impossible to defend against, partly because the government can seize the defendant’s assets before trial, making it impossible to pay a defense lawyer.

Trump’s reference to “those funding ANTIFA” is a hint that he wants to tie Antifa rioting to various progressive donors, as in earlier attempts to go after the Palestinian movement. In May 2024, the House Oversight Committee and House Education Committee demanded information from a wide range of philanthropists—George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Pritzker family’s Libra Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—about their connection to campus protests.

At the time, Foundation for Middle East Peace President Lara Friedman told Reason that this investigation was meant “to demonize parts of the tax-exempt sector that a part of the Republican Party views as a key target in the war on woke….If you make this about supposedly fighting antisemitism, you bring parts of the Democratic Party with you.” 

Now that the Republicans are in power, they may calculate that the war on woke no longer needs Democratic support, and they can go after their targets much more directly. But it doesn’t take much imagination at all to see what the retaliation by a future Democratic administration might look like.

The Biden administration used seditious conspiracy charges to pin the January 2021 riot at the Capitol on the leaders of the right-wing Proud Boys, whom Trump later pardoned. Trump himself was charged under Georgia’s RICO law in 2023 for alleged election interference, a case that is currently on pause but could be resumed in the future.

Of course, Trump’s declaration about domestic terrorism was empty bluster in 2020. Given how much blood the Trump administration tastes from its successful attacks on critical media, and the fact that Democrats have broken the seal on other forms of domestic repression, this time might turn out to be more serious. The tools are there for a political crackdown—not a full descent into dictatorship, but for an escalation of the current surveillance state.

What does it mean for Trump to designate Antifa a ‘terrorist organization’?
America doesn’t have an official list of domestic terrorist organizations, but the declaration could mean heavier political surveillance.

https://reason.com/2025/09/18/what-does-it-mean-for-trump-to-designate-antifa-a-terrorist-organization