Month: September 2023

VP Harris responds to smack talk from GOP 2024 candidates: ‘They’re scared’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Vice President Harris responded to smack talk from Republican 2024 presidential candidates Sunday, claiming that the GOP is "scared that we will win."

Harris made the comments during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Host Margaret Brennan asked Harris about comments from various Republican candidates stating that re-electing President Biden would essentially be voting to make her president.

Brennan quoted Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis, who called Harris "impeachment insurance" for Biden.

"People know if she were president – Katie bar the door. As bad as Biden did, it would get worse," DeSantis said.

"We're delivering for the American people," Harris responded. And the reality of it is that, unfortunately, very few of those who challenge our administration actually have a plan for America. You look at what we have accomplished, Margaret. We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs in America, 13 million new jobs, unemployment at record lows. We have capped the cost of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. Capped the cost of prescription drugs on an annual basis at $2,000," Harris responded.

KAMALA HARRIS MET WITH GEORGE SOROS HEIR, TOP DONORS AT HER PRIVATE RESIDENCE, RECORDS SHOW

"They're honing in on you. Why do you think that is? How do you respond to those attacks? That's not about policy, that's about you," Brennan asked.

KAMALA HARRIS THINKS SHE GETS MORE MEDIA SCRUTINY THAN VP PREDECESSORS: 'I THINK THAT IS THE CASE'

"Listen, this is not new. There's nothing new about that. I mean, listen, I am -- in my career, I was a career prosecutor. I was the first woman elected district attorney of San Francisco, a major city in this country, and re-elected. I was the first woman attorney general of the second-largest Department of Justice in the United States and re-elected. I was a United States senator," Harris said. "I represented one in eight Americans, and I'm now Vice President of the United States. They feel the need to attack because they're scared that we will win based on the merit of the work that Joe Biden and I, and our administration, has done."

Harris went on to say that she is "prepared" to serve as commander-in-chief if Biden is no longer fit to serve, but she insisted that Biden is "going to be fine."

Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have made the same criticism of the Biden-Harris ticket as DeSantis. Biden would be 86 by the end of a second term, and the Republicans say Harris would effectively be the president.

BIDEN STAFFERS RUSH TO GIVE KAMALA HARRIS A POPULARITY FACELIFT AFTER 2024 ANNOUNCEMENT

"I want to be clear that I pray every night for Joe Biden's good health, not only because he's our president, but because of who our vice president is," Christie said recently.

Biden is the oldest person in American history to run for president, followed closely by former President Donald Trump, who is 77.

Political warnings and accusations of misconduct: 6 main themes emerge in Paxton’s impeachment trial

Posted on by Texas Tribune

By Chuck Lindell

The Texas Tribune

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

"Political warnings and accusations of misconduct: 6 main themes emerge in first week of Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

The first week of suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton’s history-making impeachment trial closed Friday with only four prosecution witnesses taking the stand in the first four days.

Even so, the broad strokes of the cases being presented by lawyers for the House impeachment managers and Paxton’s defense team emerged in Tuesday’s opening statements and during frequently tedious, sometimes contentious questioning of witnesses.

Among the many subplots, these themes are likely to guide a trial that could take several additional weeks — ending when senators deliberate in private and emerge to cast votes that will determine whether the three-term Republican will return to work or be permanently removed from office.

Paxton attended the opening hours of his trial on Tuesday, during which senators overwhelmingly rejected his attempts to dismiss the articles of impeachment and his lawyer entered not guilty pleas on his behalf. He was absent the rest of the week.

The trial is set to resume Monday at 9 a.m.

Defense team challenges loyalty, evidence

Under trial rules adopted by the Senate, prosecutors began presenting their case first, and they chose to lead with three former high-ranking officials of the attorney general’s office — all of whom reported Paxton to the FBI on Sept. 30, 2020 before quitting or being fired.

Three Paxton lawyers split cross examination of the opening witnesses, and all three hit on similar themes.

Lead defense lawyer Tony Buzbee equated reporting Paxton to the FBI as an act of betrayal. By going behind the attorney general’s back, he said, Paxton was deprived of the opportunity to answer questions that could have cleared matters up.

“You went to the FBI uninformed, isn’t that true?” Buzbee asked Jeff Mateer, Paxton’s former second in command and the first prosecution witness.

“I would not say that, sir,” Mateer replied Tuesday.

[Who’s who in the Ken Paxton impeachment trial, from key participants to potential witnesses]

Defense lawyer Mitch Little picked up the theme during his aggressive questioning of the third prosecution witness, Ryan Vassar, former deputy attorney general for legal counsel, on Thursday.

In an extensive back and forth, Little suggested that Paxton was due the courtesy of a warning after nurturing Vassar’s career. More importantly, Little added, failing to let Paxton address their concerns left Vassar and other whistleblowers uninformed when they met with FBI agents to accuse Paxton of criminal acts.

Little said the whistleblowers had no direct knowledge, let alone evidence such as invoices, of wrongdoing regarding allegations that Austin real estate investor Nate Paul offered bribes by paying to renovate Paxton’s home and employing the woman Paxton was dating outside of his marriage.

“You went to the FBI on Sept. 30 with your compatriots and reported the elected attorney general of this state for a crime without any evidence, yes?” Little asked.

Vassar tried to qualify his answer several times, but Little repeatedly objected, stating it was a yes or no question.

“That’s right, we took no evidence,” Vassar finally stated.

On Friday, Rusty Hardin, a lawyer for the impeachment managers, sought to clear up the impression left by Vassar.

Vassar said he believed Little was referring to “documents, documentary evidence,” adding that he intended the FBI to find the truth, not conduct his own investigation.

“Did you give the FBI evidence?” Hardin asked.

“Our experience was evidence,” Vassar replied. “But we did not conduct our own investigation to provide documentary evidence of what we had learned. … I believed that I was a witness to criminal activity that had occurred by General Paxton.”

Prosecutors focus on “egregious misconduct”

State Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, gave the opening statement on behalf of the House impeachment managers. He promised senators would hear testimony portraying Paxton as obsessed with helping Paul — who was under state and federal investigation for his business dealings — despite warnings and objections from his top lieutenants at the agency.

Paxton engaged in “egregious misconduct,” he said.

“The state’s top lawyer engaged in conduct designed to advance the economic interests and legal positions of a friend and donor to the detriment of innocent Texans,” Murr said, adding that Paxton “turned the keys of the office of attorney general over to Nate Paul.”

Ryan Bangert, Paxton’s former deputy first assistant attorney general, testified Wednesday and Thursday that Paxton took an unusual interest in matters involving Paul, such as pressing to overrule two agency decisions that denied Paul access to documents related to an active investigation into Paul’s businesses.

“We were devoting far more resources to Nate Paul than we ever should have,” Bangert said.

“I was deeply concerned that the name, authority and power of our office had been, in my view, hijacked to serve the interests of an individual against the interests of the broader public,” Bangert added. “It was unconscionable.”

[“Operation Deep Sea”: How Nate Paul pulled the strings in the attorney general’s office to investigate his enemies]

On Friday, impeachment lawyers called their fourth witness, David Maxwell, Paxton’s former director of law enforcement. Maxwell was out of state when seven senior agency officials reported Paxton to the FBI in 2020. Instead, Maxwell took his concerns to other law enforcement officials and was later fired from the agency.

Maxwell said he found Paul’s complaint to be “absolutely ludicrous,” including claims that search warrants were improperly altered in a web of conspiracy that included a federal magistrate judge.

As a result, Maxwell said, he urged Paxton to drop his interest in Paul. “I told him that Nate Paul was a criminal … and that, if he didn’t get away from this individual and stop doing what he was doing, he was going to get himself indicted.”

Defense: Paxton did not exceed his authority

Defense lawyers, in opening statements and in questions to prosecution witnesses, pushed back on claims that Paxton acted illegally when he pressed his agency’s lawyers and employees to take actions that were helpful to Paul.

When Vassar testified that Paxton broke internal rules on hiring outside lawyers to appoint Houston attorney Brandon Cammack to investigate Paul’s complaint, Little pointed to state law to argue that Paxton — as the elected leader of the attorney general’s office — had the power to approve Cammack’s contract.

Defense lawyer Dan Cogdell, in opening statements Tuesday, said Paxton hired Cammack in understandable frustration because employees of the attorney general’s office “did little to nothing” to investigate Paul’s serious complaint that his home and business had been improperly searched by state and federal officials.

Similarly, several Paxton lawyers disputed allegations that Paxton improperly directed his agency’s lawyers to intervene in an Austin charity’s lawsuit against Paul, arguing that he had clear authority to run his agency.

Prosecutors push back on several fronts

Under questioning from House impeachment lawyer Dick DeGuerin, Maxwell pushed back on claims that Paul’s complaints had been brushed off without proper investigation. A forensic analysis of the search warrants found nothing to support Paul’s claim that the documents had been improperly altered, he said.

After Buzbee opened his case by stating that “nothing of significance” had been exchanged between Paxton and Paul, lawyers for the House impeachment team pressed their witnesses to explain how Paul benefited from Paxton’s repeated interventions.

A legal opinion, published with unusual speed at 1 a.m. on a Sunday in 2020, took a highly unusual position at Paxton’s insistence, Bangert testified. The attorney general’s office had led efforts to reopen Texas several months into the pandemic, yet Paxton demanded that the opinion say local COVID-19 safety rules barred property foreclosure sales.

Only later did it become known that Paul’s lawyer referred to the agency’s opinion letter to avoid foreclosure sales of several Paul properties two days later, Bangert said.

Buzbee warns of potential political consequences

In opening statements laying out Paxton’s case, Buzbee sounded a political warning.

Impeachment could become a common tactic of political retribution if Paxton — a leading conservative legal voice on abortion, immigration and other key issues — were to be convicted and removed from office, he argued.

“Let’s be clear. If this misguided effort is successful … the precedent it will set would be perilous for any elected official in the state of Texas,” Buzbee said.

Buzbee also argued that impeachment thwarted the will of Texas voters.

“Texans chose at the voting booth who they wanted to be their attorney general … but because of what this House has done, only 30 [senators] out of almost 30 million will decide if Ken Paxton is allowed to serve in the office he was voted into,” he said. “That’s not how it’s supposed to work. That’s not democratic.”

Impeachment team counters with its own political focus

Murr rejected arguments that impeachment violated democratic principles, saying the framers of the Texas Constitution did not believe elections alone could protect the public from abusive office holders.

“It’s too easy to use the powers of office to conceal the truth,” Murr said in opening statements. “The voters did not, and do not, know the whole truth” because Paxton went to great lengths to conceal his misconduct, he added.

Impeachment lawyers also focused on the ultraconservative political beliefs held by their first three witnesses — all attorneys who praised Paxton’s priorities that, as one put it, turned the Texas attorney general’s office into a beacon of the conservative legal movement.

Mateer worked on Capitol Hill for two Texas Republican stalwarts, Tom DeLay and Dick Armey, and is now chief legal officer of First Liberty Institute, a Christian legal defense organization that focuses on religious liberty issues. His nomination for federal judge by President Donald Trump was thwarted by controversy over statements critical of transgender youth.

Bangert is a senior vice president for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal advocacy group focused on religious freedom and limiting abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, and he had previous ties to the Christian Coalition.

Vassar worked for notable conservative judges, including Don Willett, a former Texas Supreme Court justice named to a federal appeals court by Trump. Vassar also was a summer fellow for former Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Paxton has blamed the impeachment on political opposition to his deeply conservative principles, but Mateer, Bangert and Vassar testified that they reluctantly took their concerns to the FBI after concluding that Paxton was misusing his authority on Paul’s behalf.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

House Republicans move to use DHS funding bill to ramp up immigration enforcement, hit sanctuary cities

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Some Republicans in the House are using a Homeland Security appropriations bill to push for sweeping amendments that would overhaul immigration enforcement, including hitting sanctuary cities, in response to the ongoing migrant crisis at the southern border.

While much of the energy on Capitol Hill is geared toward avoiding a government shutdown at the end of the month, Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, has introduced a slew of amendments to the appropriations bill, which funds the Department of Homeland Security for the upcoming fiscal year.

The vast majority of those amendments are focused on immigration and border security.

HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY GOP REPORT ACCUSES MAYORKAS OF CEDING CONTROL TO CARTELS

They include one that would bar funding for the processing of asylum claims from illegal immigrants who have passed through a prior country — a more intense version of the Biden administration’s efforts to limit asylum claims to those who have crossed illegally and failed to claim asylum in a country through which they have already passed.

Another amendment would adopt legislation to prioritize the removal of certain illegal immigrants, another would bar money from being made available for the release of illegal immigrants into the interior. One amendment would block money from being used for migrant transports in the interior without 72-hour notifications to the state and local officials of the destination and notification on the DHS website — tapping into concerns about late-night migrant flights.

Nehls wants to include language that would bar federal funding from going to "sanctuary" cities — jurisdictions that block cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Conservatives say sanctuary policies in New York City and elsewhere encourage migrants to cross border.

The lawmaker wants to increase the number of ICE detention beds back to the numbers seen during the Trump administration, which have decreased under the Biden administration. Another amendment would require DHS to keep a minimum of 14,000 enforcement officers or else lose funding.

GOP REPS TENNEY, ROY LEAD PUSH TO REDUCE MAYORKAS' SALARY TO $1 OVER BORDER CRISIS 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Nehls said that Republicans had been given the majority "for a reason" and said they have an obligation to hold the administration accountable.

"This starts with stopping the flow of illegal aliens burdening communities, combating human trafficking, and fighting the influx of fentanyl and illicit drugs poisoning our communities," he said.

He also pointed to separate amendments by lawmakers to limit Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ salary to $1.

"Taxpayer dollars should be used to secure our nation, not further spread the consequences of an open border. I was sent to Congress to fight for Texas, and I speak for them when I say they are sick and damn tired of empty promises," he said. "No security, no funding."

Nehls’ amendments in particular got the support of hawkish groups. RJ Hauman, president of the National Immigration Center for Enforcement (NICE) who also serves as a visiting adviser at the Heritage Foundation, said Nehls is making the appropriation bill stronger.

"His amendments address asylum abuse, provide more detention beds and ICE agents, make sure detention centers remain fully operational, and stop taxpayer dollars from flowing to sanctuary cities," he told Fox News Digital. "Every Republican — from leadership to rank and file — should unite behind what their border state colleague is seeking to do."

Other amendments being submitted include an amendment from Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., to bar money from being used for programs that use humanitarian parole to release migrants into the interior.

DHS CALLS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO NYC'S MIGRANT CRISIS OPERATIONS AS ADAMS PUSHES BACK 

It marks the latest House Republican effort to push back against the agenda of the Biden administration on immigration. Some Republicans have pushed for Mayorkas’ impeachment or have suggested defunding the agency.

Meanwhile, Republicans have passed their own legislation — the Secure the Border Act — which would restrict the use of parole to release migrants, limit the use of the CBP One app, increase Border Patrol agent numbers and restart border wall construction.

The Biden administration has pushed back against Republican criticism, calling on Congress to approve more funding and to pass comprehensive immigration reform — including a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. It has also said its policies of expanding migrant parole pathways and renewing what it says are consequences for illegal entry — while pursuing more funding — are working, given the "broken" system in which the agency says it is working.

"Congress should work with us to keep our country safe, build on the progress DHS is making, and deliver desperately needed reforms for our broken immigration system that only legislation can fix," a spokesperson told Fox this week.

New Mexico Republican legislators call for Dem Gov. Grisham’s impeachment after gun order: ‘She’s rogue’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Two Republican members of the New Mexico State House of Representatives are calling for Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to be impeached after she temporarily suspended open and concealed carry across Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County for at least 30 days.

Grisham on Thursday said she needed to respond to recent gun-related deaths, which include an 11-year-old boy who was shot and killed while outside a minor league baseball stadium on Wednesday night.

The suspension of open and concealed carry was classified as an emergency public health order.

"When New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game — when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn — something is very wrong," Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR TEMPORARILY SUSPENDS OPEN, CONCEALED CARRY ACROSS ALBUQUERQUE: 'VIOLENCE AT EVERY TURN'

Republican state Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block announced on Saturday they are calling for the governor to be impeached.

"I am calling on counsel to begin the impeachment process against Governor Grisham," Lord said. "This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populous. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Even Grisham believes this emergency order won’t prohibit criminals from carrying or using weapons; a basic admission that this will only put New Mexicans in danger as they won’t be able to defend themselves from violent crime." 

Speaking with Fox News Digital, Lord said that Grisham is a "rogue governor."

"She put this emergency order together and it violates her oath. And she's supposed to be protecting and defending the rights of New Mexico, she can't just raise her hand one day and say, I promise to uphold this oath and promised to protect the people of New Mexico and the Constitution, and then just one day decide, oh, just kidding," Lord said.

Block told Fox News Digital that there "is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution."

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR SHOCKS WITH COMMENT ABOUT CONSTITUTION AFTER ISSUING TEMPORARY GUN BAN: NOT 'ABSOLUTE'

"It is an absolutely flagrant attack on law-abiding citizens who she is targeting with this order, and she is trying to force litigation and waste more taxpayer dollars while doing it, because New Mexicans are the ones that are going to have to pay the legal bills on this, not her personally."

The National Association for Gun Rights and Foster Haines, a resident of Albuquerque, announced on Saturday they filed a lawsuit against Grisham and New Mexico Secretary of Health Patrick Allen, arguing the emergency order is unconstitutional. They are asking for a temporary restraining order against the measure to be issued.

"Gov. Luhan Grisham is throwing up a middle finger to the Constitution and the Supreme Court," said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights.

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., weighed in on Grisham's executive order, saying it's unconstitutional.

"I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution," Lieu said on X, formerly known as Twitter.

David Hogg, who advocates for stricter gun laws, said on X "I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution."

Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said after the order was issued that he has concerns.

"While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold," Allen said. "I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense."

Fox News' Landon Mion contributed to this report.

Republicans losing patience with House’s halfhearted efforts to impeach Biden

Posted on by Hunter

It's too early to tell whether it's a temporary blip or a longer-term trend, but House Republicans vowing to "impeach Joe Biden" seem to be hitting more public pushback than usual from their fellow Republicans. The portion of the party not completely devoted to Rudy Giuliani-style hoax-peddling appears to be getting more and more concerned that holding an impeachment trial of President Joe Biden that includes exactly zero evidence of Biden doing anything wrong would not, in fact, convince Americans that the party can be trusted with government power.

There's probably going to be a real conflict there, because to House Republicans like Jim Jordan and James Comer, the thought of holding off on announcing an impeachment just because they haven't been able to dig up evidence for one appears inconceivable—and to date, it's not clear that anyone will be able to convince the House sedition caucus to back down.

As for the evidence that Republican patience with the impeachment carnival is wearing thin, the most colorful criticism comes from GOP political strategist Susan Del Percio, who allowed herself to be named and quoted by The Messenger as saying, "It's stupid. It's completely made up. They don't have anything," and, "This is not about impeachment for cause. This is a political stunt. And I have a feeling it's going to go very badly for Republicans."

That's the sort of sharp critique that strategists start dishing out when supposed allies start suggesting really bad ideas, ideas on the level of, "Hey, let's put Rep. George Santos in charge of the holiday gift exchange this year."

Then we had the amazing sight of Fox News hosts taking the stuffing out of the still-unindicted Rep. Matt Gaetz's impeachment threats. And not just any Fox hosts, mind you, but the “Fox & Friends” crowd. Do you have any idea how bad your conservative idea has to be to get “Fox & Friends” on the other side of it? These are people who would appoint George Santos chief wallet inspector!

Responding to Gaetz's threat to remove Kevin McCarthy from the House speakership if he stands in the way of an attempted Biden impeachment, host Brian Kilmeade roundly mocked him:

"Who would he put there?" he asked. "[House Majority Leader] Steve Scalise, who's dealing with blood cancer right now? Is there anybody else?"

"Matt Gaetz is just speaking into the wind," Kilmeade added dismissively. "Have Matt Gaetz pick up the phone and call some moderate Republicans and see if he can switch to his side. McCarthy would be more than happy to let him do that."

You have to be way, way over the line to lose Brian Kilmeade. And Kilmeade wasn't the only one dismissive of Gaetz's threats. Noting that Gaetz's fellow Republicans would probably be "all for" a Biden impeachment if Rep. James Comer and the other supposed investigators "can get proof" of Biden’s wrongdoing, co-host Ainsley Earhardt opined that "they definitely need that proof in order to start an impeachment."

That is  not what Comer and the others want to hear. They've been pushing to have an impeachment vote without ever finding proof of what largely at this point has devolved into the usual bizarre conspiracy theorizing. And in doing so, they're going beyond even what the “Fox & Friends” morning crowd can stomach.

Not all signs of chaos in the Republican ranks are from people skeptical of the wisdom of proceeding without actual evidence; among hard-right conspiracy cranks, accusations are flying over Comer's inability to prove claims that started out as hoaxes to begin with. MAGA remora and nationally renowned crappy parker Seb Gorka is fuming over Comer's inability to deliver:

"Another press conference? I've had it, I'm sorry Comer, you don't know how to do a press conference. You have a press conference on 'Romanian businessman gave Hunter Biden $32' [...] And your oxygen thief members of the committee are standing in front of the visual aids! This is what we voted for? It's a joke!"

Yeah, that's what would have sold your press conference, James: being able to better see the visual aids for the $32 check. Forget evidence—first, y'all need to practice your choreography.

So things really do appear to be heating up as Comer and Jordan continue to produce substanceless circus performances with parades of clowns whostill can't come up with even the most basic evidence for the party's conspiracy claims. The far right is mad because they don't understand why Comer can't find evidence that doesn't exist, and the more sedition-agnostic members of the party are increasingly wary of attaching themselves to a show that consists of little more than Comer and Jordan continually tripping over their own feet.

Does it portend a shift in Republican tolerance for the House seditionists obsessed with impeaching Joe Biden out of sheer spite? Hard to say. But it's something to keep an eye on.

RELATED STORIES:

The Senate appears to be uniting against right-wing House extremists

The GOP 'once saw their roles as legislators first and Republicans second.' Trump has destroyed that

House Republicans swiftly act to obstruct on Trump’s behalf

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: The planned destruction of democracy in Wisconsin

Posted on by Greg Dworkin

Ian Millhiser/Vox:

The Republican Party’s plan to rule the state of Wisconsin forever, explained

Wisconsin’s legislature is gerrymandered to ensure that Democrats will never win it. Republicans have a plan to keep it that way.

A quirk in the state constitution, however, may allow Wisconsin’s gerrymandered legislature to strip Protasiewicz of her ability to decide cases, and to do so indefinitely. That would leave the state supreme court evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and thus unable (or, at least, unwilling) to strike down the state’s gerrymander.

According to the New York Times, “Republicans in Wisconsin are coalescing around the prospect of impeaching” Protasiewicz. If the state assembly moved forward with impeachment, and then the gerrymandered state Senate convicted her, that wouldn’t actually be that big of a deal. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers could immediately appoint a replacement justice, who would then provide the fourth vote to strike down the gerrymandered maps.

But the state constitution also provides that “no judicial officer shall exercise [her] office, after [s]he shall have been impeached, until [her] acquittal.” So the state assembly could conceivably impeach Protasiewicz, and then the state senate could delay her trial forever — effectively creating a vacancy on the court that could last for a very long time.

Michelle Goldberg/The New York Times:

Wisconsin Republicans Try to Subvert Democracy, Again

Janet Protasiewicz, the left-leaning candidate in the nonpartisan contest, was careful not to declare how she would rule in specific cases, but she said that she was personally pro-choice and that she wanted to take a fresh look at the state’s “rigged” electoral maps. She won by 11 points, about as near to a landslide as anyone in closely divided Wisconsin is likely to get. The voters’ message couldn’t have been clearer.

But Wisconsin Republicans may have one move left to thwart their inconvenient citizenry. It looks increasingly likely that they could use their nearly impregnable majority to impeach Protasiewicz before she’s heard a single case. “Anyone who cares about democracy should consider this threat to be deadly serious,” said Ben Wikler, the chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. The only way to head off this autocratic power play, he said, “is if there’s a massive uproar that drowns out the voices of election overturners and Constitution shredders.”

Charlie Sykes/The Bulwark:

Justice Scalia Would Like a Word

The conservative flip-flop on judicial speech

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin…

Before they pull the trigger, however, Wisconsin’s Republicans might want to brush up on their Scalia. The late conservative judicial icon had some thoughts on the question of whether judicial candidates should be able to talk about political issues.

In the 2002 case, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, Scalia wrote the majority opinion in which the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not permit the government to prevent judicial candidates from stating their opinions on disputed political or legal issues.

Scalia was joined by the court’s other conservative members — including Clarence Thomas. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and three other liberal justices dissented.

now ask him about Wisconsin cc @benwikler https://t.co/Ir4j4HfRkc

— Greg Dworkin (@DemFromCT) September 8, 2023

POLITICO:

The GOP Is Losing the Doctor Vote in Pennsylvania. Will the Party Flatline in 2024?

A political realignment around health care is reshaping state politics.

From the beginning, Derry Township was a GOP stronghold (founder Milton Hershey was a staunch Republican), home to descendants of the chocolate factory’s Italian immigrant laborers and Pennsylvania Dutch farmers who settled in the rural, blue-collar and conservative hamlet. It was a “one-party town,” said lifelong resident and local historian Lou Paioletti, a Democrat and Derry Township’s elected tax collector. “Way back in the early days, there was an unwritten expectation that the chocolate company workers be registered Republican.” This GOP mood prevailed through the turn of this century. Republican presidential candidates, including Donald Trump in 2016, regularly won the township — the beneficiary of a massive Republican voter registration advantage.

By the early 2010s, though, the med center was making Derry Township suburban and transient — and more Democratic. After the 2012 election, The Sun, the Hershey area weekly newspaper, reported local Republicans’ “disappointment” with voter returns that was “bound to set off a round of soul searching — and bloodletting.” During Trump’s presidency, Democratic voter registration dramatically increased; in 2020, Joe Biden prevailed here.

NBC News:

Republicans are trying to find a new term for ‘pro-life’ to stave off more electoral losses

Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., summarized the closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill as being focused on “pro-baby policies.”

At a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans this week, the head of a super PAC closely aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., presented poll results that suggested voters are reacting differently to commonly used terms like “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, said several senators who were in the room.

The polling, which NBC News has not independently reviewed, was made available to senators Wednesday by former McConnell aide Steven Law and showed that “pro-life” no longer resonated with voters.

“What intrigued me the most about the results was that ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ means something different now, that people see being pro-life as being against all abortions ... at all levels,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said in an interview Thursday.

We know them for who they are.

I'm from Baltimore, where some dude wrote a poem on a warship and now all the rest of you mooks have to sing a couple verses of it before you can do much as play a fucking baseball game. https://t.co/FWRskG43yf

— David Simon (@AoDespair) September 8, 2023

Noah Smith/”Noahpinion” on Substack:

The danger of another American civil war is low

Re-upping some arguments I've made before.

Six or seven years ago, during the early days of the Trump administration, this rhetoric would have seemed all too realistic. I could clearly see how the U.S. might fall into a civil war similar to the one that laid waste to Spain in the 1930s — a contested election leading to a split within the military that eventually spirals into an all-out contest for control of the country.

In 2023, though, I’m not so worried. The 2020 election came and went, and sure enough, it was contested, even with a tiny little bit of violence. But there were no signs of a split within the U.S. Armed Forces. There’s little reason to expect that any 2024 replay would turn out differently.

And if the U.S. Military doesn’t split and fight itself, the prospects for civil war are low. With liberal cities and conservative exurbs, and each type of place heavily dependent on the other, the country just isn’t set up for a “national divorce” like the one we had in 1860.

Igor Bobic/HuffPost:

'A Big Circle Jerk': John Fetterman Dares Republicans To Impeach Joe Biden

“Go ahead. Do it, I dare you,” said the Democratic senator. "It's a loser."

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) had some blunt words for Republicans who are pushing to impeach President Joe Biden: It’ll bite you in next year’s elections.

“Go ahead. Do it, I dare you,” Fetterman said during an interview with a handful of reporters in his Capitol Hill office on Wednesday. “If you can find the votes, go ahead, because you’re going to lose. It’s a loser.”

“It would just be like a big circle jerk on the fringe right,” the senator added. “Sometimes you just gotta call their bullshit. If they’re going to threaten, then let’s see it.”

Lindsey Graham, David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler aka member of the GOP Senate https://t.co/paVXxITZ6n

— Greg Dworkin (@DemFromCT) September 8, 2023

from Matt Robison and Cliff Schecter:

YouTube Video

Pelosi says she’ll run for reelection in 2024 as Democrats try to win back House majority

Posted on by Associated Press

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she will run for reelection to another term in Congress as Democrats work to win back the majority in 2024.

Pelosi, 83, made the announcement before labor allies in the San Francisco area district she has represented for more than 35 years.

“Now more than ever our City needs us to advance San Francisco values and further our recovery,” Pelosi said in a tweet. “Our country needs America to show the world that our flag is still there, with liberty and justice for ALL. That is why I am running for reelection — and respectfully ask for your vote.”

First elected to Congress in 1987, the Democratic leader made history becoming the first female speaker in 2007, and in 2019 she regained the speaker's gavel.

Pelosi led the party through substantial legislative achievements, including passage of the Affordable Care Act, as well as turbulent times with two impeachments of former President Donald Trump.

The announcement quells any talk of retirement for the long-serving leader who, with the honorific title of speaker emeritus, remains an influential leader, pivotal party figure and vast fundraiser for Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi, 83, will run for her seat in Congress again in 2024

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will seek a 20th term in the U.S. House of Representatives, announcing Friday she is running for re-election in 2024. 

Pelosi, 83, declared her candidacy for California's 11th Congressional District representing San Francisco in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. 

"Now more than ever our City needs us to advance San Francisco values and further our recovery. Our country needs America to show the world that our flag is still there, with liberty and justice for ALL," Pelosi said. "That is why I am running for reelection — and respectfully ask for your vote."

Pelosi stepped down from serving as leader of the House Democratic Caucus last year, passing the torch to current House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. She now serves among the rank-and-file, though Democratic lawmakers have dubbed her as "Speaker Emerita" out of respect for her more than 35-year tenure in the House.

PELOSI SAYS MANY TRUMP SUPPORTERS DON'T VALUE HUMAN DIGNITY FOR EVERYONE

First elected to Congress in 1987, the Democratic leader made history becoming the first female speaker in 2007, and in 2019 she regained the speaker's gavel.

Pelosi led the party through substantial legislative achievements, including passage of the Affordable Care Act, as well as turbulent times with two impeachments of former President Donald Trump.

PELOSI CALLS TRUMP INDICTMENTS ‘BEAUTIFUL,’ SAYS A TRUMP WIN IN 2024 WOULD BE LIKE ‘THE WORLD BEING ON FIRE’

Her announcement puts to rest any suggestion of retirement, though it comes amid concerns over the advanced age of numerous elected officials, including octogenarian Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; 90-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; and President Biden, who is 80.

McConnell, 81, renewed concerns about his age and fitness for office after he froze in front of news cameras last month for the second time this year. 

McConnell’s physician medically cleared him to continue with business as usual and did not find any evidence of a stroke or a seizure after several tests, per an announcement Tuesday. 

NANCY PELOSI ANNOYED BY MSNBC QUESTION ABOUT IMPEACHING BIDEN: ‘WITH ALL DUE RESPECT … THIS IS FRIVOLOUS’

Even so, the episode prompted critics like Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley to deride the Senate as a "privileged nursing home." At least one House member, Rep. John James, R-Mich., introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution to impose an age limit on holding federal office. James' proposal is to bar anyone who would be 75 or older from running for president, vice-president or either house of Congress. 

Biden has not escaped scrutiny over his age, either. A recent Wall Street Journal poll found two-thirds of Democrats think he is too old to run for president again. Pelosi has come to the president's defense, however, calling age "relative." 

"I think the president should embrace his age, his experience, the knowledge he brings to the job. Actually, the leader on the other side is not much younger. I don’t like to use his name, but you know who I mean. He’s not that much younger. So I don’t think — age is a relative thing. It is — and I think this president, our country is very well served by his leadership, again, his experience, his knowledge, and it counts for a lot," she said. 

Pelosi added that Biden is "a kid to me." 

Fox News' Elizabeth Elkind and Hanna Panreck and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Sen. John Fetterman is back—and telling it like it is

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Sen. John Fetterman rightfully earned headlines earlier this year for publicly dealing with his mental health struggle. He has used his experience to try to destigmatize mental illness, openly talking about his treatment and recovery as a way to “pay it forward” and make mental health recognition and treatment a national issue.

The Pennsylvania Democrat definitely appears to be recovered, and he’s bringing the no-bullshit fire that supporters expected when they elected him last year. He’s taking on Republicans with all the ridicule and disdain they deserve.

House Republicans trying to gin up a ridiculous impeachment investigation of President Joe Biden? “Go ahead. Do it, I dare you,” Fetterman said, speaking to reporters Wednesday. “If you can find the votes, go ahead, because you’re going to lose. It’s a loser.”

“It would just be like a big circle jerk on the fringe right,” Fetterman continued. “Sometimes you just gotta call their bullshit. If they’re going to threaten, then let’s see it.” Yep, that’s telling it like it is, in the kind of language it demands.

Campaign Action

He isn’t saving his candor for just the House assholes, either. He has a few choice observations about Republican freshman Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, the faux-populist and former venture capitalist with a law degree from Yale University and an estimated net worth of $7 million in 2022. A bipartisan group of senators, including Fetterman and Vance, has been working on rail safety legislation following the disastrous derailment of a train carrying hazardous substances in East Palestine, Ohio, earlier this year.

Fetterman is directly questioning Vance’s commitment to that legislation and to working in a bipartisan manner to get it done. He told reporters that they could be as close as just one vote away from having the 60 they need to get the bill to the floor, but instead of focusing on that, Vance is spending his time on a MAGA-friendly bill to ban mask mandates on public transportation, airplanes, and in public schools.

Vance is "fixating" on "silly performance art," Fetterman said. "You know, 'breathe free' or whatever it's called.” He added that Vance should be "focusing on getting [the train safety bill] finished and taken care of.” He continued by saying Vance "wants to put up an act that's going to go nowhere" rather than "something that really can be transformative for rail safety."

"It's bizarre," Fetterman said. "No one is trying to force masks back on." It’s bizarre both from a policy standpoint and as a waste of the Senate’s time, but it’s also totally performative and a middle finger to the Democrats that Vance is supposedly working with to pass the rail bill. He’s putting MAGA nonsense ahead of critical work.

Fetterman is absolutely right in calling that out. More of that please, Democratic senators.

Why does it seem like Republicans have such a hard time recruiting Senate candidates who actually live in the states they want to run in? We're discussing this strange but persistent phenomenon on this week's edition of "The Downballot." The latest example is former Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers, who's been spending his time in Florida since leaving the House in 2015, but he's not the only one. Republican Senate hopefuls in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Montana, and Wisconsin all have questionable ties to their home states—a problem that Democrats have gleefully exploited in recent years. (Remember Dr. Oz? Of course you do.)

Embedded Content

AM