Democrats join Republicans in condemning antisemitism at Columbia University

A number of Democrats in the Senate have joined their Republican colleagues in denouncing discrimination against Jewish students at the prestigious Ivy League Columbia University, where an anti-Israel solidarity encampment persists on campus, prompting the institution to move classes online on Monday. 

"Every American has a right to protest," Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "But when protests shift to antisemitism, verbal abuse, intimidation, or glorification of Oct. 7 violence against Jewish people, that crosses the line."

"Campuses must remain safe for all students."

FETTERMAN HAMMERS 'A--HOLE' ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTERS, SLAMS OWN PARTY FOR RESPONSE TO IRANIAN ATTACK: 'CRAZY'

Schumer, who represents New York City, where Columbia is located, is the first Jewish majority leader in the Senate and also the highest ranking Jewish elected official in U.S. history. 

Last week, the anti-Israel demonstration sprang up on Columbia's campus, with students camping out in tents and demanding that the university divest from all companies with ties to Israel. Since then, the protest has grown in size and presented a safety threat to Jewish students. This has mushroomed into such a concern that an Orthodox rabbi at the school advised Jewish students to leave campus because "Columbia University’s Public Safety and the NYPD cannot guarantee Jewish students’ safety."

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another Democrat, also denounced the display of antisemitism at the university, saying she was "appalled." 

GOP PREPS ATTACKS ON VULNERABLE DEM SENATORS OVER MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL DISMISSAL

"Threats of violence against Jewish students and the Jewish community are horrible, despicable and wholly unacceptable," she said. "Using the rhetoric of terrorists has no place in New York, where we pride ourselves on tolerance and the right of every group to practice their religion in peace."

Others who joined their party members in addressing the encampment were Sens. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., and John Fetterman, D-Penn.

"I’m outraged by the vile displays of antisemitism at Columbia University, including threats of violence," read a post on X, formerly Twitter, from Rosen, who faces a tough re-election battle in November in swing state Nevada. 

Fetterman, who has emerged as one of Israel's strongest supporters in his party, compared the demonstration to "Charlottesville for these Jewish students." Fetterman referenced the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally in Virginia that drew hundreds of white supremacists and ultimately turned violent, resulting in the death of one woman. 

"President Minouche Shafik: do your job or resign, so Columbia can find someone who will," Fetterman added. 

FETTERMAN HIGHLIGHTS NEED FOR 'SAFE, PURE, TAXED' MARIJUANA IN 4/20 PUSH TO LEGALIZE WEED

While a number of Democrats have chosen to make public statements on the events unfolding at Columbia, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., blamed the party for allowing it to happen in the first place. "The radical anti-Israel protestors have always been part of the Democratic Party’s base," he wrote on X. "Now Joe Biden is using them as an excuse to undermine Israel and appease Iran."

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said the administration condemns "echoing the rhetoric of terrorist organizations" in the "strongest terms." 

Republicans in the Senate were quick to condemn the encampment at Columbia, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., even suggested, "Any student on a visa that is arrested for supporting Hamas needs to be deported immediately."

Many GOP members in the upper chamber have reinforced their support for Israel and the Jewish people frequently throughout the war between Israel and terrorist group Hamas in Gaza. Democrats have been more measured and careful with their commentary on the war and Israel as the party's divide on the issue expands, making the statements from them regarding Columbia particularly significant. 

President Biden and Democrats have faced criticism from their Republican counterparts for pulling back from Israel, a major U.S. ally in the Middle East. Biden recently warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that U.S. policy in support of the country could change depending on the actions it takes to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza.

And in the wake of Iran's recent direct attack on Israel, Republicans quickly blamed Biden and other Democrats, accusing them of emboldening Israel's adversary to undertake such an audacious attack.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: A Good Week for America—and Joe Biden

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.

Jennifer Rubin/Washington Post:

A rotten week for MAGA Republicans’ feeble stunts

In dismissing the articles of impeachment with a party-line vote, Senate Democrats ignored crocodile tears from the likes of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who voted against the most meritorious impeachment in history following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot — that dismissing an impeachment before trial would create a bad precedent (unlike letting an insurrectionist off the hook?). Schumer deserves credit for nipping in the bud the GOP-controlled House’s abuse of power.

When Republicans blatantly liedisregard their oaths and — to borrow a phrase — weaponize government, Democrats have an obligation to call them out. That entails refusing to take Republican antics seriously. When hearings and investigations obviously lack good faith, the Democrats can uphold the stature of Congress by simply walking away and refusing to play these games.

👀 More Gonzales: "Look, Matt Gaetz, he paid minors to have sex with him at drug parties,  Bob Good endorsed my opponent, a known neo-Nazi. These people used to walk around with white hoods at night, now they are walking around with white hoods in the daytime”

— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) April 21, 2024

David Frum/The Atlantic:

Trump Deflates

It wasn’t just Putin who lost in the House vote on Ukraine aid.

Ukraine won. Trump lost.

The House vote to aid Ukraine renews hope that Ukraine can still win its war. It also showed how and why Donald Trump should lose the 2024 election.

For nine years, Trump has dominated the Republican Party. Senators might have loathed him, governors might have despised him, donors might have ridiculed him, college-educated Republican voters might have turned against him—but LOL, nothing mattered. Enough of the Republican base supported him. Everybody else either fell in line, retired from politics, or quit the party…

At the beginning of this year, Trump was able even to blow up the toughest immigration bill seen in decades—simply to deny President Joe Biden a bipartisan win. Individual Senate Republicans might grumble, but with Trump opposed, the border-security deal disintegrated.

Three months later, Trump’s party in Congress has rebelled against him—and not on a personal payoff to some oddball Trump loyalist, but on one of Trump’s most cherished issues, his siding with Russia against Ukraine.

So now the GOP is the party of isolationism, international weakness, and Putin. Congrats. I’m sure Ronald Reagan would be proud of you — not! https://t.co/qS8oICs2Pf

— Stuart Rothenberg (@StuPolitics) April 20, 2024

That’s not just a throwaway line. Indies and moderate voters dislike Putin and support Ukraine. Republicans including Trump risk a lot in this election by bucking what normal Americans want.

When I was coming up in politics, I was drawn to the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" party. Today, the party of strength is the Democratic party. If the Democrats can sustain this identity and purpose, it will redefine American politics for decades. This is a return to… https://t.co/ByS4owhXQC

— Stuart Stevens (@stuartpstevens) April 22, 2024

POLITICO:

How large parts of Trump’s trial are playing out in the shadows

Critical aspects of the case have been shielded from the media and the public.

Behind the scenes, a maze of arcane rules and archaic systems has made it virtually impossible for the media — and the public — to access key motions and pretrial rulings in real time. New York’s docketing practices have not been updated for the digital age. The judge, Justice Juan Merchan, has imposed policies that force days or even weeks of delays before crucial documents become public. When they do, they have been subject to a heavy, court-imposed redaction process.

And Merchan frequently uses email to communicate with Trump’s defense lawyers and the prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office. That’s led to a ballooning set of off-the-book messages that are shielded from the public.

The result is that one of the most consequential chapters of American history is being drafted with missing pages and invisible ink.

I suspect the public is less bothered by this than reporters (who are not wrong). The trial starts today, and that’s more important than anything else.

Our poll also finds RFK Jr.'s candidacy hurting Trump more than Biden, which contrasts with other polling https://t.co/QfQB1p2dAy pic.twitter.com/Vw4uVYqdy9

— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) April 21, 2024

POLITICO Magazine:

‘We Just Finally Saw the Dam Break’: How House Republicans Embraced the Chaos

Veteran Rep. Tom Cole is fed up with his party’s insurgents.

In press shorthand, Cole is usually described as an institutionalist, and since the tea party era, he’s also been known for butting heads with his more rambunctious, often newer colleagues on the far right.

Today’s antagonism toward House leadership stems from “a lack of respect for the institution and the wisdom of the institution,” he said. Speaking of the bomb-throwers, he added, “You know, you’ve got to grow up.”

Cole is also a member of the Chickasaw Nation, a trained historian and as a cigar aficionado, literally a devotee of Washington’s smoke-filled back rooms.

On this week’s episode of Playbook Deep Dive, we got deep into the weeds of why the Rules Committee has been such a trouble spot for recent GOP speakers and whether Cole thinks Johnson can hang on as members threaten to oust him. I also had Cole answer some prying questions from some of his favorite historians on the subject of Donald Trump.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden said he told Matt Gaetz to "kick rocks, tubby." "Matt Gaetz is a bully. Chip Roy is a bully. Bob Good's a bully. And the only way to stop a bully is to push back hard." Gaetz says that Van Orden is "not a particularly intelligent individual" pic.twitter.com/3IHeqIMKJP

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 21, 2024

The New York Times does its New York Times thing of mitigating any negative to Trump stories that they can:

Will a Mountain of Evidence Be Enough to Convict Trump?

Monday will see opening statements in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. The state’s case seems strong, but a conviction is far from assured.

Though the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, has assembled a mountain of evidence, a conviction is hardly assured. Over the next six weeks, Mr. Trump’s lawyers will seize on three apparent weak points: a key witness’s credibility, a president’s culpability and the case’s legal complexity.

Prosecutors will seek to maneuver around those vulnerabilities, dazzling the jury with a tale that mixes politics and sex, as they confront a shrewd defendant with a decades-long track record of skirting legal consequences. They will also seek to bolster the credibility of that key witness, Michael D. Cohen, a former fixer to Mr. Trump who previously pleaded guilty to federal crimes for paying the porn star, Stormy Daniels.

It’s showtime, baby. Watch the sparkly stone, avoid the tough questions about trying to throw an election.

But the news in this story is the DA will open with David Pecker. And pecker is the key witness, not Michael Cohen.

4/ Here's the passage from the NY Indictment indicating the evidence the DA - including through Pecker's own testimony - can present re the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting, which set the whole scheme in motion. link: https://t.co/n4YNsBYJhn pic.twitter.com/PpIrMJAYrg

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) April 21, 2024

Contrast and compare the typical Washington Post/New York Times political coverage with this from Dan Froomkin/Press Watch:

An interview with a newsroom leader who speaks the truth about Donald Trump

A few weeks ago, the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Chris Quinn, became an instant hero to the legion of news consumers who are fed up with the media’s refusal to call Donald Trump what he is.

In his weekly “letter from the editor,” under the headline “Our Trump reporting upsets some readers, but there aren’t two sides to facts,” Quinn wrote:

The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information.

The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse.

He continued, bluntly:

As for those who equate Trump and Joe Biden, that’s false equivalency. Biden has done nothing remotely close to the egregious, anti-American acts of Trump.

It was a brilliant clarion call against dishonest both-sidesing in political journalism, and it went viral. The response, as he wrote a week later, was overwhelming – and overwhelmingly positive.

Yuh-huh. Via Playbook. pic.twitter.com/TfSoIrGg12

— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) April 21, 2024

POLITICO:

Trump’s New York trial is knocking him off balance

While the former president was stuck in court, his opponent hit the trail.

For the first time in months, despite his many legal entanglements in New York and elsewhere, it was Trump, not his opponent, President Joe Biden, who seemed to have been thrown off balance, constrained by a judge’s schedule and gag orders as he whipsawed between the courtroom and the functions of his campaign.

And even Trump seemed to acknowledge the liability that the trial was becoming for him — and likely will be for weeks more as the general election campaign picks up and, simultaneously, his court proceedings drag on.

April 22: Trial begins April 22: NYAG $175M Bond hearing April 23: Gag order hearing April 24: Nauta grand jury transcript April 25: SCOTUS immunity arguments

— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) April 20, 2024

Hicks and Pecker. Sounds like a new restaurant. It's actually a likely early witness list for Trump's trials.

Cliff Schecter covers what the political pundits gloss over:

Supreme Court prepares to debate Trump immunity claim in election interference case

In what may be the most closely watched case this term at the Supreme Court – involving the highest-profile appellant – former President Donald Trump has offered a sweeping argument for why he should not face trial for alleged election interference.

The high court will hold arguments Thursday morning in what could determine the former president's personal and political future. As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority – with three of its members appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.  

The official question the justices will consider: Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?

This is new territory for the Supreme Court and the nation. No current or former president has ever been criminally indicted.

The stakes could not be higher – both for the immediate election prospects, and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. But it will be the second time this term the high court will hear a case directly involving the former president. 

TRUMP HUSH MONEY TRIAL ENTERS DAY 2

On March 4, the justices unanimously ruled that Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot over claims he committed insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

The decision to intervene at this stage in the immunity dispute is a mixed bag for both Trump and the Special Counsel. The defendant wanted to delay the process longer – ideally past the November election – and Jack Smith wanted the high court appeal dismissed immediately so any trial could get back on track quickly. 

A federal appeals court had unanimously ruled against Trump on the immunity question.

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the three-judge panel wrote. "But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution." 

Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election result, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

In its brief on the merits submitted this month, the Special Counsel told the high court that "presidents are not above the law."

"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," said the government. 

But Trump's legal team told the high court, "A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents."

His lawyers added: "The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency."

In a series of supporting briefs, 19 GOP-controlled states and more than two dozen Republican members of Congress are among those backing Trump's legal positions.

Some of the issues the court will have to consider:

Can a former president ever be prosecuted for "official acts," or does he enjoy "absolute immunity?"

By including the words "whether and to what extent" in its official question framing the case, the Supreme Court – in the eyes of many legal scholars – may be prepared to limit or narrow "absolute immunity," at least in this case.

But court precedent may give Trump some protection – that former presidents should not face civil liability "predicated on his official acts" (Fitzgerald v. Nixon, 1982). Trump, of course, is facing criminal charges brought by the government. The question remains: Will the court now extend any implied civil protection to a criminal prosecution? 

What constitutes an official act of a president? Will the court distinguish between Trump's alleged election interference as clearly acting in his executive capacity, or was he acting in a purely political or personal capacity as an incumbent candidate? 

A federal appeals court that rejected Trump's arguments in a separate civil lawsuit alleging that he incited the violent Capitol mob with his "Stop the Steal" rally remarks on Jan. 6, 2021 concluded that "his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act." Trump is making the same immunity claims in those pending lawsuits.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate 2020 case involving Trump financial records sought by New York prosecutors, wrote, "This Court has recognized absolute immunity for the President from 'damages liability predicated on his official acts,' But we have rejected absolute immunity from damages actions for a President's nonofficial conduct." 

Thomas cited the 1997 Clinton v. Jones case, which determined that a sitting president did not have immunity from civil suits over his conduct prior to taking office and unrelated to his office. Again, the current dispute involves a criminal prosecution, and the justices may weigh whether that deserves greater deference to the constitutional claims from both sides.

What acts are within the outer rim of a president's constitutional duties?  

The lower federal courts deciding the matter pointedly avoided addressing that issue, but the high court now has full discretion to take it up. Questions or hypotheticals from the bench may offer hints about how broadly the justices may want to explore the orbit of presidential authority, when weighing political or "discretionary" acts vs. duty-bound or "ministerial" acts.

During January oral arguments before the DC-based federal appeals court, Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, suggested that if a president were to order Seal Team Six military commandos to assassinate a political rival, he could then be criminally prosecuted only if first found guilty by Congress through the impeachment process. 

Given the stakes, the Supreme Court may compromise here and issue a mixed ruling: rejecting Trump's broad immunity claims while preserving certain vital executive functions, like the national security role of commander-in-chief. The big unknown is what side Trump's election-related conduct would fall, in the eyes of the nine justices.  

Do federal courts have any jurisdiction to consider a president's official discretionary decisions?  

On this separation-of-powers question, Smith's team and others have cited the 1952 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case that limited a president's power to seize private property – even in a wartime emergency – absent any express congressional authorization. That landmark ruling curbing executive power also affirmed the judiciary's binding role to review a president's actions in office.

Will the Supreme Court ultimately decide not to decide, and throw the competing issues back to the lower courts for further review?

The justices may get buyer's remorse and conclude that weighty questions were not fully considered at the intermediate appellate or trial court level. That could significantly delay any trial.

Or they may let the trial play out first, and give both sides a chance to make their claims before a jury. Depending on the verdict, the Supreme Court would then likely revisit the immunity questions. 

Despite Trump's urging, the court pointedly chose not to address another lingering issue: whether the criminal prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment's ban on "double jeopardy," since he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 for election subversion, following his second impeachment.       

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: He faces a federal case over his alleged mishandling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York fraud case involving alleged hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York case began on April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Depending on how the court rules, proceedings might not get underway until later this summer, in early fall or perhaps much later.

EXCUSED JUROR REVEALS SELECTION PROCESS FOR TRUMP'S HUSH MONEY TRIAL: 'NOT A FAN'

There is one other factor to consider: Trump could win re-election and then, upon taking office, order his attorney general to dismiss the Special Counsel and all his cases. Neither side's legal team has yet to publicly speculate on that scenario. 

So, Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited – so a ruling could come sooner.  

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" – meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume.  

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial.  

Chutkan said in December that she does not have jurisdiction over the matter while it is pending before the Supreme Court, and she put a pause on the case against him until the justices decide the matter on the merits.

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean that his election interference prosecution collapses, and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases. 

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win, even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court – an indefinite delay in any trial that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.   

This week was a ‘bad week’ for the US Constitution, Ted Cruz says

Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told "Sunday Morning Futures" anchor Maria Bartiromo that the past week was "really bad" for the United States Constitution. The Texas Republican's comments came as the Senate dismissed the impeachment trial of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and their refusal to enforce the warrant requirement for FISA reauthorization. 

MARIA BARTIROMO:…Why are you having such a hard time moving the needle on security at the border, Senator? ‘You’ meaning Republicans?

SENATE DEMOCRATS KILL BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST DHS SECRETARY MAYORKAS

SEN. TED CRUZ Well, listen, the Democrat Party has embraced open border. They want this invasion. And Republicans, listen, I, I feel for speaker Mike Johnson. He has a virtually impossible job. He's down now to a one vote majority. That majority goes all over the place on everything. And so he's a good man who is trying mightily. But at least so far, Republicans have not been willing or able to use the leverage we have to force real border security

I'll tell you, Maria, this week was a bad week for the United States Constitution. This week we had the Alejandro Mayorkas trial that was supposed to happen this week, and Senate Democrats, every Democrat, refused to hold a trial and essentially nuked the impeachment provisions of the Constitution. And also this week, we saw both the House and the Senate refuse to enforce the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for searches of American citizens on FISA. And I think both of those in the same week is really a bad week for the Constitution.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: The aftermath

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.

We begin today with Annie Karni of The New York Times writing that House Speaker Mike Johnson now has a status within the Republican Party equivalent to former Vice President Mike Pence due to the House passage of funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan yesterday.

When Mr. Pence refused former President Donald J. Trump’s demands that he overturn the 2020 election results as he presided over the electoral vote count by Congress on Jan. 6, 2021 — even as an angry mob with baseball bats and pepper spray invaded the Capitol and chanted “hang Mike Pence” — the normally unremarkable act of performing the duties in a vice president’s job description was hailed as courageous. [...]

Mr. Johnson and Mr. Pence, both mild-mannered, extremely conservative evangelical Christians who have put their faith at the center of their politics, occupy a similar space in their party. They have both gone through contortions to accommodate Mr. Trump and the forces he unleashed in their party, which in turn have ultimately come after them. Mr. Pence spent four years dutifully serving the former president and defending all of his words and actions. Mr. Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, played a lead role in trying to overturn the election results on Mr. Trump’s behalf.

I’ll give Ms. Karni the “in their party” observation. But Mike Pence was quite sure that he would be breaking the law if he did as the shoe salesman asked him to do when he presided over the counting of electoral vote on Jan. 6, 2021 and to the extent that he wasn’t 100% sure, Mike Luttig and former Vice President Dan Quayle told him that Trump’s request was unconstitutional.

Speaker Johnson was trying to get needed security funding passed after delay after delay after delay and in defiance of the right flank of his party. Many people in the political world underestimated his ability to do it. So I’ll toss Johnson a cookie and say job well done but still...that does not make him Churchill.

Olivia Beavers and Jordain Carney of POLITICO report that Speaker Johnson has staved off a challenge to his speakership for now.

That could go two ways for Johnson. Tempers could cool as lawmakers return to their districts for a week and focus on their constituents and reelection bids. Or members, particularly in deep-red districts, hear more from an angry base — prompting more members to entertain action against Johnson.

Greene and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, the second Republican to back ousting Johnson, are betting it’s the latter. And they reiterated their promises on Saturday that Johnson will ultimately face a choice: resign or face a referendum. [...]

Despite the intense fury among conservatives, some say they still won’t support the so-called motion to vacate. But if Johnson gets booted and goes for the gavel again, or tries to run to lead the GOP again next term, they said they wouldn’t support his bid.

David Frum of The Atlantic writes that the passage of the Ukraine funding bill in the House is yet another Trump loss on a policy issue and a sign of the shoe salesman’s diminished status.

The anti-Trump, pro-Ukraine rebellion started in the Senate. Twenty-two Republicans joined Democrats to approve aid to Ukraine in February. Dissident House Republicans then threatened to force a vote if the Republican speaker would not schedule one. Speaker Mike Johnson declared himself in favor of Ukraine aid. This weekend, House Republicans split between pro-Ukraine and anti-Ukraine factions. On Friday, the House voted 316–94 in favor of the rule on the aid vote. On Saturday, the aid to Ukraine measure passed the House by 311–112. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Senate will adopt the House-approved aid measures unamended and speed them to President Biden for signature.

As defeat loomed for his anti-Ukraine allies, Trump shifted his message a little. On April 18, he posted on Truth Social claiming that he, too, favored helping Ukraine. “As everyone agrees, Ukrainian Survival and Strength should be much more important to Europe than to us, but it is also important to us!” But that was after-the-fact face-saving, jumping to the winning side after his side was about to lose. [...]

To make an avalanche takes more than one tumbling rock. Still, the pro-Ukraine, anti-Trump vote in the House is a very, very big rock. On something that mattered intensely to him—that had become a badge of pro-Trump identity—Trump’s own party worked with Democrats in the House and Senate to hand him a stinging defeat. This example could become contagious.

Renée Graham of The Boston Globe looks upon the criminal trial of the shoe salesman with some sadness.

So after months of delays due to Trump’s run-out-the-clock legal strategy, having the former president on trial is both overdue and welcome.

But it’s the latest disorienting moment exacted on this country since Trump’s literal descent into politics in 2015 with his first first presidential run. We have endured two impeachments; a deadly insurrection; his fanboying of murderous dictators; unveiled threats of retribution against his perceived enemies; and a profane disregard for the pillars of American democracy.

Now there’s the twisted possibility of a presumptive Republican presidential nominee also being a convicted felon. And despite this, tens of millions of people, mostly his fellow Republicans, including those like Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, who once pretended he could never support Trump, will vote to return to the White House the man who once called it “a real dump.”

It’s a disturbingly sad state of affairs.

Luis Feliz Leon writes for his labor blog Labor Notes (reprinted by In These Times) about the historic victory of workers who have voted to unionize at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

The United Auto Workers is riding a wave of momentum after winning landmark contracts at the Big Three automakers last year. Production workers at Volkswagen earn $23 per hour and top out above $32, compared to $43 for production workers at Ford’s Spring Hill assembly plant by the contract’s end in 2028. [...]

To head off a union drive, Volkswagen boosted wages 11% to match the immediate raise UAW members received at Ford. Peoples saw her pay jump from $29 to $32 an hour. [...]

The vote was a key test of whether the union could springboard the strike gains to propel new organizing in longtime anti-union bastions in the South, the anchors of big investments in the electric-vehicle transition.

The vote was 2,628 in favor of forming a union to 985 against. There were seven challenged ballots, and three voided; 4,326 workers were eligible to vote.

Edward Russell of The Washington Post report that construction is about to begin on a high-speed rail line connecting Las Vegas to a suburb of Los Angeles.

Travelers have a lot to look forward to. Electric trains will depart every 45 minutes from a Las Vegas station south of the city’s storied Strip and a Southern California station in Rancho Cucamonga, a Los Angeles suburb about 40 miles east of downtown.

Traveling at up to 186 mph — faster than any other train in the United States — Brightline West trains will make the 218-mile trip in about 2 hours and 10 minutes. [...]

Other high-speed railroads that would carry passengers at 200 mph and faster are in the works in California, Texas and the Pacific Northwest.

Driving between Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas takes at least three hours without traffic, according to Google Maps.

David Remnick of The New Yorker tries to make sense of the Iran-Israel kerfuffle as the Netanyahu government continues its destruction of Gaza.

There is no way to know whether another volley will be coming in the short term, but what is clear is that the decades-long shadow war between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer confined to the shadows. A line was crossed when Israel carried out a lethal air strike on Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a leading commander in Iran’s Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and six of his associates, who were meeting in a consular building in Damascus. That strike, as precise as it was deadly, was followed by Iran’s massive launch of drones and ballistic missiles on Israeli territory—an attack that was thoroughly repelled by a coördinated effort involving Israel, the United States, Britain, Jordan, the U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia.

By deploying such a relatively mild response near Isfahan, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seemingly attempted to thread a kind of political needle, at once mollifying the Biden Administration and the Sunni Arab leaders to avoid a regional escalation and yet satisfying his domestic political allies who demanded that he “do something.” Indeed, the Iranian leadership decided to absorb the latest attack with theatrical cool. State television showed “life as usual” footage in the area and insisted that the regime’s nuclear and military sites in the region were undamaged.

Zia Ur Rehman of Deutsche Welle reports on the chill in the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The relationship between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan's government has been growing more and more strained since the fall of Kabul in August 2021.

Many experts attribute the current tensions to the increase in cross-border terrorism originating from Afghanistan.

But some of Islamabad's recent actions have also embittered the Taliban regime — last year, Pakistan enforced trade restrictions on its neighboring country, expelled 500,000 undocumented Afghan migrants , and implemented stricter visa policies at border crossings. [...]

As ties with Pakistan cool, the Taliban administration is forging new partnerships.

Western powers remain hesitant, but other players such as China, Russia, Iran, India, and some Central Asian states are cautiously engaging with the regime.

Finally today, I ate breakfast at a local restaurant yesterday and was quite audible saying things like “she is nuts” as I was reading George Parker’s batsh*t crazy interview with former British prime minister Liz Truss in The Financial Times.

Truss explains that she is having Lunch with the FT because “you’ve got to know the enemy” — before clarifying that she doesn’t regard the FT as part of the deep state per se, more a kind of flying buttress propping it up. Along with other sinister elements in a leftwing “anti-growth coalition” — she has singled out “Brexit deniers”, people with podcasts and those living in north London town houses — the FT apparently helped to ensure that Truss’s time in Downing Street famously had the longevity of a supermarket lettuce.

Liz is one step away from talking about Jewish space lasers, y’all!

Have the best possible day everyone!

GOP preps attacks on vulnerable Dem senators over Mayorkas impeachment trial dismissal

Republicans are planning to pin Senate Democrats' move to kill the articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on vulnerable incumbents ahead of the November elections. 

After several Democratic senators who face tough re-election battles voted in line with their party on Wednesday in order to deem the House-passed impeachment articles unconstitutional and forego a trial, Republican candidates are already using it to their advantage. 

"Joe Biden’s wide open border is going to be a top issue for voters headed into November," National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesperson Maggie Abboud told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

REPUBLICANS ACCUSE BIDEN, SCHUMER OF EMBOLDENING IRAN PRIOR TO ATTACK ON ISRAEL

"You can bet we are going to highlight Senate Democrats’ refusal to hold Joe Biden’s DHS Secretary accountable on the campaign trail, in advertising, and in every other way possible," she added. 

A spokesperson for One Nation, a group aligned with Senate Republican leadership and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., also shared that it would be continuing to hit Democrats hard on immigration in the wake of Senate Democrats' votes to block the impeachment trial of Mayorkas from moving forward. 

Republican candidates taking on Democrats in competitive races, such as those in Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, were quick to slam their opponents for voting in line with their party and allowing Mayorkas to escape scrutiny. 

"Everyone should be outraged that Jon Tester does more for illegal immigrants in Washington than he does for legal taxpaying American citizens," former Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy, a Republican Senate candidate in Montana, said in a statement. 

‘CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY’ OF SENATE DEMS QUASHING MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL QUESTIONED BY EXPERTS

After voting with his party, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., suggested the impeachment was a partisan game, while also urging both Mayorkas and Biden to use their executive branch authorities to help secure the border and pushing his colleagues in Congress to pass a bipartisan border package. 

His campaign further told Fox News Digital in a statement that while Tester works towards a bipartisan solution on the border, "Tim Sheehy opposes the bipartisan border security bill endorsed by border patrol agents, and repeatedly called to defund the Department of Homeland Security."

Campaigns for Bernie Moreno, the Republican Senate nominee in Ohio, and David McCormick, Sam Brown and Eric Hovde, expected to be the Republican nominees for Senate in Pennsylvania, Nevada and Wisconsin, respectively, each made similar criticisms of vulnerable incumbent Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Bob Casey, D-Pa.; Jacky Rosen, D-Nev.; and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.

"Together, Casey, Biden and Mayorkas have enabled drug cartels to flood Pennsylvania communities with deadly drugs like fentanyl," claimed Elizabeth Gregory, a spokesperson for McCormick. 

As Republicans add the Mayorkas impeachment dismissal to their attacks on Democratic opponents, the incumbent senators are already pushing back. 

In a statement, Baldwin spokesperson Andrew Mamo said, "Tammy is focused on solutions, not political games," reiterating her support for a "bipartisan border compromise."

REPUBLICANS PREDICT DEMS TO PAY 'HEAVY PRICE' IN ELECTION AFTER MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT BID FAILS

"Senator Rosen is supporting solutions to increase border security and fix our broken immigration system because she is a bipartisan and independent voice for her state," Rosen's campaign said in a statement, criticizing "the extreme MAGA Republicans running against her" as "rubber stamps for Trump."

A Brown campaign spokesperson similarly pointed to the senator's support for the bipartisan package, noting that Moreno vocally opposed it. 

Casey's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Tommy Garcia further claimed, "Republican Senate candidates lost their message on the border the minute they opposed the border security bill that members of their own party helped write," referencing a border package that was negotiated by Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla.; Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., which quickly lost support following former President Donald Trump's public criticism. 

Garcia remarked that "the ads write themselves," following the Republicans' abandonment of the border package. 

GOP SENATOR EYES LEGISLATION TO DEFUND 'PROPAGANDIST' NPR AFTER SUSPENSION OF WHISTLEBLOWER

Both Republicans and Democrats appear to be prepping to wield the border issues against one another, but Republican strategist Doug Heye noted that Democrats "are massively on defense on the border."

With this in mind, Heye also said, "Impeachment of the DHS Secretary was largely a niche issue for the Republican base already well-committed in those races."

Uncommitted and swing voters are not likely to have paid attention to it, he said. 

Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, agreed with Heye's assessment, adding, "I don't think the specifics of the Mayorkas impeachment matter much if at all — it just seems like too much of an Inside Washington story to matter."

However, he pointed out "[President] Biden has terrible numbers on immigration." 

"Republicans will of course hammer on the issue, so it is something Democrats need to be prepared to counter," he continued. 

Republican strategist David Kochel called the Mayorkas impeachment a "lose/lose" situation for Democrats. While vulnerable incumbents are expressing their support for the bipartisan border package, he noted it wasn't accomplished, and thus it is more difficult for them to use in their favor. 

"The idea was to kill this thing quickly and hope voters forget about it," he said of the Mayorkas impeachment proceedings. Going through with a full trial likely would have looked worse for Democrats, he added. 

Fox News Digital reached out to DHS for comment.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Edward Snowden calls on Biden to veto FISA renewal after Senate vote

Whistleblower Edward Snowden called for President Joe Biden to veto the renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) on Saturday after the Senate voted to pass the re-authorization on Friday. 

"The House has voted to approve unconstitutional, warrantless searches of Americans' communications," Snowden wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "Now the Senate has too—late on Friday, after the media had gone home. Only the President can stop it from becoming law, and he won't—because he's the one that asked for it."

Snowden's statements come after the upper chamber voted 60-34 to pass the re-authorization. Section 702 serves as a critical tool used by the government to gather intelligence on foreign subjects using the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers. 

SENATE PUSHES FORWARD FISA SURVEILLANCE BILL AS EXPIRATION LOOMS

The measure is now headed to Biden's desk for his signature. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a statement following the vote, calling Section 702 "indispensable to the Justice Department’s work to protect the American people from terrorist, nation-state, cyber, and other threats." 

"In today’s heightened global threat environment, the Justice Department will continue to use Section 702 to ensure that our efforts to keep our country safe are informed by the most valuable and timely intelligence, as we continue to uphold our commitment to protect the rights of all Americans," Garland said in the statement. 

The provision lapsed for less than an hour at midnight on Friday. Had the provision expired, companies would not have been forced to comply with government requests for surveillance aid under the bill. The government would then be required to obtain a warrant to compel any such assistance from companies.

Bipartisan coalitions have grown on both sides of Section 702 renewal, with some arguing that the provision is a vital national security necessity, and others expressing concern over its violations of constitutional protections.

‘CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY’ OF SENATE DEMS QUASHING MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL QUESTIONED BY EXPERTS

Amendments proposed by Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Roger Marshall, R-Kan., Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., were voted on prior to the bill's final consideration. 

"We cannot continue sacrificing our freedoms in the name of security. Rather than reining in FISA overreach, RISAA expands it dramatically," Paul said before voting on his amendments commenced. "I urge my colleagues to support meaningful reforms that protect both national security and civil liberties."

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., spoke out against the consideration of the amendments given the short deadline. None of the amendments secured enough votes, however, and were not added to the bill as a result. 

The House of Representatives voted to pass the bill earlier this month, placing Speaker Mike Johnson in a tough spot between privacy and national security hawks within his conference. 

Fox News' Julia Johnson and Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report. 

Fetterman highlights need for ‘safe, pure, taxed’ marijuana in 4/20 push to legalize weed

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., made his case for marijuana legalization ahead of April 20, known as a holiday of sorts for those who enjoy smoking or otherwise consuming the drug. 

"Right now, we're doing this interview in Washington, D.C., and right now I could leave [and] go buy marijuana legally," Fetterman told Fox News Digital in an interview on Friday. He compared the capital's policy on the drug to that of his home state Pennsylvania, which only allows residents to legally use marijuana for medicinal purposes. 

"Pennsylvanians wanted this five years ago," he claimed, recalling his time campaigning throughout the state. "We're still not there."

SENATE PASSES FISA SURVEILLANCE TOOL RENEWAL MINUTES AFTER MIDNIGHT DEADLINE

Fetterman noted that most of the states surrounding the Keystone State had already made the drug legal for adults. "It's not complicated. Other states have done that," he said. 

Ohio, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, which surround Pennsylvania, have legalized marijuana for adult recreational use in small amounts. 

The origins of 4/20's association with marijuana are not agreed on, but it has been speculated that the holiday could have started in several ways. Some theorize that the number 420 was used by police to reference the drug, while others point to Bob Dylan's "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35," noting that when the numbers are multiplied they equal 420. Despite the various theories, there does not appear to be consensus on how the day began. 

GOP LAWMAKERS SLAM BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S NEW TITLE IX PROTECTIONS FOR 'GENDER IDENTITY'

"It needs to be safe, pure, taxed and available," Fetterman said, explaining that illegally purchased versions of the drug are difficult to trace and could be cut with dangerous substances, such as fentanyl.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, marijuana in small amounts has been made legal for recreational use by adults in 24 states, as well as Washington, D.C., and two U.S. territories. 

"Any adult should be allowed to do that legally without any criminal … blowback," the Pennsylania senator said. 

REPUBLICANS ACCUSE BIDEN, SCHUMER OF EMBOLDENING IRAN PRIOR TO ATTACK ON ISRAEL

Fetterman told Fox News Digital that he has encouraged President Biden directly to take federal steps towards "liberalizing" the drug. 

He has also lobbied Biden to deschedule marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), under which the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) currently lists it as schedule I. This schedule includes drugs "with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." Marijuana is included in the list of schedule I substances, alongside heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ecstasy, and peyote, among others. 

Fetterman stressed he doesn't believe "anyone [should] have their lives impacted criminally for a nonviolent marijuana charge."

‘CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY’ OF SENATE DEMS QUASHING MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL QUESTIONED BY EXPERTS

As for illegal markets that still exist in states where marijuana has been legalized, he noted that no states have implemented the policy perfectly, "but I think you'll see that that will continue to evolve."

"Marijuana is going to continue" to become cheaper as policy develops, and "that will absolutely eliminate any of [those] illegal markets," he claimed. 

The senator also emphasized the bipartisan nature of efforts to reform marijuana policy. "Republicans want legal weed. Democrats want legal weed," he said. "And I think this is a [place] where we could come together in a bipartisan way to say, 'Look, let's do this and just get on with it.'" 

Murphy slams Republicans on Mayorkas vote in response to Trump Jr.: ‘Republicans are full of s‑‑‑’

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., took aim at Republicans on Friday in a social media response to Donald Trump, Jr. after calling out Senate Democrats who voted to end the impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. 

"Your Friday morning reminder that Republicans are full of s--- when they complain about the border," Murphy wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "They killed the tough, bipartisan border security bill because Trump told them to keep the border a mess because it would help him politically."

Murphy was responding to an earlier post by Trump, Jr. where he called out Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio - all of whom voted with their party to dismiss two articles of impeachment and are currently seeking reelection. 

‘CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY’ OF SENATE DEMS QUASHING MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL QUESTIONED BY EXPERTS

"Next time Dems like Bob Casey, Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown try to portray themselves as tough on the border, remember that they just did Biden's bidding by voting to acquit Mayorkas without a trial," Trump, Jr. wrote on X on Thursday. "By taking that vote, they all just endorsed the invasion at our southern border!"

The first article against Mayorkas alleged he had engaged in "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law" when addressing the border in his capacity as DHS Secretary while the second article claimed he had breached public trust. 

REPUBLICANS PREDICT DEMS TO PAY 'HEAVY PRICE' IN ELECTION AFTER MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT BID FAILS

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., initially requested unanimous consent — which would have provided a set amount of time for debate among the senators, as well as votes on two GOP resolutions and a set amount of agreed upon points of order. The request was objected to by Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.

Schmitt stated in his objection that the Senate should conduct a full trial into the impeachment articles against Mayorkas, rather than the debate and points of order suggested by Schumer's unanimous consent request, which would be followed by a likely successful motion to dismiss the articles. 

Schumer proposed a point of order declaring the first article unconstitutional. A majority of senators agreed despite several failed motions by Republicans. 

It was deemed unconstitutional by a vote of 51-48, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voting present. 

After another batch of motions to avoid voting on Schumer's second point of order, which would deem the second article unconstitutional, the Senate agreed to it. The vote was along party lines 51-49, with Murkowski rejoining the Republicans. 

Fox News' Julia Johnson contributed to this report. 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton can be disciplined for suit to overturn 2020 election, court says

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas appeals court has ruled that Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton can face discipline from the state bar association over his failed effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

A disciplinary committee of the State Bar of Texas accused Paxton in 2022 of making false claims of fraud in a lawsuit that questioned President Joe Biden's victory. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeals said Paxton can be sanctioned by the committee because the lawsuit seeks to punish him in his personal capacity as an attorney and not as a public official.

JUDGE SHOOTS DOWN TEXAS AG PAXTON'S ATTEMPT TO BLOCK GUARANTEED INCOME PROGRAM

"The focus of the Commission’s allegations is squarely on Paxton’s alleged misconduct — not that of the State," Judge Erin Nowell, an elected Democrat, wrote in the 2-1 opinion.

The lone Republican on the panel, Judge Emily Miskel, was in dissent.

A similar lawsuit was also brought against one of Paxton's top deputies. Earlier this week, a coalition of state Republican attorneys general urged the Texas Supreme Court to reject efforts by the bar to impose discipline. All nine members of the state's highest civil court are Republicans.

"As in that case, we will appeal this ruling and we have full confidence the Supreme Court of Texas will not allow false claims by the State Bar and partisan political revenge to affect professional licensure of the state’s lawyers," Paxton spokeswoman Paige Willey said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for the State Bar of Texas and the committee accusing Paxton declined to comment on the ruling.

Paxton is among the highest-profile attorneys to face a threat of sanctions for aiding in efforts led by former President Donald Trump to throw into question Trump's defeat.

The state bar's disciplinary group's punishments against an attorney can range from a written admonition to a suspension or disbarment. The disciplinary process resembles a trial and could include both sides eliciting testimony and obtaining records through discovery.

Paxton is not required to have bar membership in order to serve as attorney general.

State bar officials began investigating complaints over Paxton’s election lawsuit in 2021. A similar disciplinary proceeding was launched by the group against Paxton's top deputy. That case awaits a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court.