President Biden's approval rating has hit a year-high in the third poll this week, driven largely by an increase in support from female voters.
An Emerson College poll released Friday found 45 percent of voters said they approve of Biden's performance, a 3-point increase since last month, while 49 percent disapprove, a two-point decrease.
“Biden’s increase in approval appears to be driven by women voters. Since July, women voters’ approval of the President has jumped 10 points, from 39% to 49%,” Executive Director of Emerson College Polling Spencer Kimball said.
His approval rating in the Emerson poll has been increasing steadily since April, when it sat at 41 percent, but remains underwater in a difficult political climate.
Still, Biden has seen a series of positive polls this week. A Politico-Morning Consult survey, published on Wednesday, found that 46 percent of all respondents approve of the job Biden is doing as president, the highest level since December in that poll. And his approval hit 45 percent in an NBC News poll, the highest since October.
Responses to the generic congressional ballot remained largely unchanged since last month, with 45 percent of voters saying they would vote for a Democratic candidate and 45 percent saying they'd vote for a Republican.
“Women voters support the Democratic congressional candidate over the Republican candidate by 10 points, while men break for the Republican candidate by 12,” Kimball said.
A large swath of respondents (39 percent) ranked the economy as the most important factor in their vote, followed by threats to democracy (15 percent) and abortion access (10 percent).
There is also tight competition on whether voters would support Biden or former President Trump if they became the presidential nominees in 2024, with 45 percent opting for Biden and 44 percent for Trump. That difference of 1 percentage point is within the poll’s margin of error.
Six percent of those polled said they would vote for neither Biden nor Trump in the hypothetical contest, while 5 percent said that they are undecided.
Recently, Biden and his administration have seen a slew of legislative victories, which include the passing of his climate, health care and tax package, his signing of a bipartisan gun safety bill and the announcement of an initiative to cancel student loan debt for millions of Americans.
When asked in the new survey about the upcoming midterm elections, 46 percent of registered Democrats said they will vote in November, compared to 41 percent of registered Republicans.
The new Politico-Morning Consult poll, which was conducted earlier this month, has a margin of error of 2 percentage points for all respondents and 4 points for party breakdowns.
The 45th president of the United States is under investigation for potential violations of the Espionage Act.
That one potent fact was the most explosive bombshell on Friday as the saga of the FBI investigation into former President Trump took several new turns.
The story has sidelined every other piece of news in the political world this week. The starting gun was fired when Trump himself confirmed early reports of a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Monday. The pace of developments has not eased since.
Trump being Trump, even news of possible crimes committed by him had a downside for Democrats. The passage of a major piece of legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, long sought by President Biden and his party, became a sideshow to the Trump-centric main event.
Political insiders of every stripe are wondering what to make of the most recent discoveries — and where the story goes from here.
The possible crimes
We now know the FBI search of Trump’s estate was premised on an investigation of three potential offenses.
One of those possible charges had been widely predicted: it pertains to the concealment or removal of official documents.
Another covers the destruction, alteration or concealment of records "with the intent to impede, obstruct or influence" an investigation — an intriguing charge given the number of other probes directed at Trump.
The biggest shock came with the inclusion of a third possible offense under section 793 of Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code.
The language of the statute is complicated, but its main thrust is that it is a criminal offense for someone to misuse, mishandle or fail to guard national security information that they believe “could be to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”
What that means, exactly, in relation to Trump is so far unknown — though it appears on its face plausibly consistent with a Thursday evening Washington Post scoop that asserted investigators were looking for information about nuclear weapons.
The things we don’t know
The feverish speculation that has gripped Washington is partly the result of the extraordinary nature of an FBI search of a former president’s home — something that has never happened before.
But it is also a consequence of a situation in which many key details have been revealed in part, but not entirely.
The revelation about the Espionage Act came with the release of two documents Friday — the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago and the inventory of items seized.
The previous day, Attorney General Merrick Garland had announced at a brief press conference that he wanted those documents unsealed. His request met with no opposition from the former president and his legal team.
Importantly, however, neither the Department of Justice nor Trump’s team expressed any wish to make the affidavit that underlies the search public.
That document would give much more insight into investigators’ thinking, since it made their case to a federal magistrate for believing that a crime or crimes had been committed.
The inventory is key nevertheless. It asserts that among the items seized were numerous instances of classified material, including “various classified/TS/SCI documents” — an abbreviation that refers to one of the highest levels of classification: Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.
The list also included such intriguing entries as “Info re: President of France,” “Handwritten note” and “Leatherbound box of documents.” An executive order granting clemency to longtime Trump ally Roger Stone was also among the items taken.
The broader view
The 30,000-ft view is one in which every new tidbit becomes ammunition in the nation’s increasingly bellicose partisan wars.
The past week has seen Trump critics gleeful at what they imagine to be his imminent indictment, if not imprisonment; and his diehard supporters just as adamant that he is the victim of a nefarious plot by the ill-defined “Deep State.”
Trump is arguing that the information in his possession at Mar-a-Lago was already declassified. That claim is sure to be scrutinized and tested.
The usual coterie of his staunchest allies is rallying around. Late Friday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told reporters at the Capitol that she was on her way to file articles of impeachment against Garland. She accused the attorney general of using his powers “to politically persecute Joe Biden’s enemies.”
The current moment is only likely to become more febrile with that kind of rhetoric. It's dangerous enough as is.
On Thursday, a man was shot and killed by law enforcement in Ohio after allegedly trying to breach security at the FBI office in Cincinnati.
The man was identified as Ricky Shiffer. A social media account in that name had encouraged attacks on the FBI. Another post, on the day of the Mar-a-Lago raid, alluded to a crossing of the rubicon against which citizens should rise up.
"We must not tolerate this one," the post said. "This time we must respond with force."
One account bearing Shiffer's name also appeared to indicate its author had been in or around the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
As for Trump, he faces legal dangers on several fronts. He repeatedly pleaded the Fifth Amendment earlier this week during a deposition in a civil case in New York. At least three other criminal probes could endanger him.
Legal experts say that, when it comes to the Mar-a-Lago matter, charges could be months away if they are pressed at all.
The former president has skated away from trouble many times before. He remains, in spite of it all, the favorite to win the GOP nomination in 2024, should he enter the race.
But right now, the former president is once again sailing in uncharted waters.
Former Vice President Mike Pence will not be present when the House Jan. 6 committee holds a prime-time hearing on Thursday, but he will be a central figure as the panel makes its first presentation to the public of what unfolded before and during the riot at the Capitol.
Pence has not directly cooperated with the committee, but some of his former aides have. In recent months, a steady stream of new details has come out about Pence’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, and he has publicly rebuked former President Trump for saying the election was stolen.
“I anticipate that we will hear about Mike Pence on Thursday night. You can’t tell the story without him,” said Norm Eisen, who served as special counsel to Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment.
Pence’s role in certifying the Electoral College results on Jan. 6, 2021, hours after hundreds of pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol, has only become more of a flashpoint in the investigation of the day’s events and in Republican politics more broadly.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the House panel investigating Jan. 6, has emphasized the significance of Pence refusing to leave the Capitol as rioters were inside the building, suggesting to do so would have given an opening for Trump’s allies to follow through on their plan in Pence’s absence.
The New York Times reported late last month that at least one witness indicated to the committee that Trump reacted approvingly to chants calling for Pence to be hanged.
And the Times also reported in recent days that Pence’s former chief of staff Marc Short alerted Secret Service the day before the insurrection to warn of the potential security risks to Pence should Trump publicly turn on his vice president.
The committee is likely to make the threat to Pence a central part of its presentation to the public as it seeks to capture public attention and lay out the gravity of the situation.
The Washington Post reported that Michael Luttig, a conservative lawyer who advised Pence on handling his duties on Jan. 6, as well as former Pence aides Marc Short and Greg Jacob are among those expected to appear as witnesses during Thursday’s prime-time hearings.
Eisen said showing how Pence rejected some of the legal arguments concocted by Trump’s advisers would help rebuff GOP attempts to brush off the committee’s findings as partisan.
“So, the other way that Pence comes in is as a dose of reality in response to these lunatic legal theories that were circulating. So that’s an important part of the narrative,” Eisen said.
Pence himself has grown increasingly willing to break with Trump over the events of Jan. 6 in particular as he charts his own post-White House path.
The former vice president repeatedly referred to Jan. 6 as a “dark day” in history and spoke about upholding his constitutional duty in remarks to various conservative groups after leaving office.
As Trump continued to make debunked claims that the 2020 election was rigged, Pence went a step further. In February, Pence explicitly said Trump was wrong to suggest he could overturn the result of the presidential election.
“Under the Constitution, I had no right to change the outcome of our election. And Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024,” Pence said at the time.
Still, Pence has personally kept the Jan. 6 committee at arm’s length in public.
In October, Pence suggested the media was focusing on the riot so extensively to distract from the Biden administration’s difficulties with the Afghanistan withdrawal and other domestic issues.
And while former aides like Short and Keith Kellogg have testified before the panel behind closed doors, Pence himself has yet to come before the committee.
A Pence spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment, including on whether there had been any communication between Pence and the committee.
“We have wanted to make sure that we get as much information as possible from as many material witnesses as possible,” Raskin said Monday during a Washington Post Live event when asked about the prospect of Pence testifying.
“We want to figure out exactly what happened. And Vice President Pence was obviously the object of this political onslaught on Jan. 6, so we need to fill in the details as much as possible about what happened there.”
Asked if Pence’s life was in danger on Jan. 6, Raskin urged the public to tune in on Thursday night.
“Watch the hearings,” Raskin said. “The hearings will tell a story about what took place on that day.”
The biggest moment of the Jan. 6 House Select Committee’s existence is about to arrive.
On Thursday evening, the panel will hold the first of its televised hearings. The event will take place in prime time and be broadcast by almost every major network and news channel.
For some, it will be the most dramatic congressional investigation since the Watergate hearings a half-century ago.
Others — committed supporters of former President Trump, in particular — will likely tune out the hearings.
Here are five big questions that have yet to be answered.
What will we learn that’s new about Trump?
Democrats are promising explosive revelations about the former president’s role in fomenting the attack on the Capitol.
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) on Tuesday promised in a CNN interview, “We’re going to see how much Trump was involved. Trump ran this show. He ran it from the time he lost the election in November, and he did it with his son, or sons, and all of his henchmen up there.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the committee, told The Washington Post in a Monday interview that the panel had “found evidence about a lot more than incitement here.”
Raskin added, “I think that Donald Trump and the White House were at the center of these events. That’s the only way of really making sense of them all.”
Ironically, the main difficulty Democrats may face in making the case against Trump is the vast amount that is already known.
Trump was, after all, impeached by the House only one week after the insurrection, becoming the only president in history to be impeached on two separate occasions.
At a rally at the Ellipse near the White House, immediately before the assault on the Capitol, he told supporters, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” And he also told them that President Biden, if certified as the election’s winner, would be an illegitimate president.
There have also been subsequent media leaks about other things the panel may have uncovered — including, recently, the suggestion that Trump was sympathetic to the demands of some of his supporters to “hang Mike Pence,” then the sitting vice president.
There could be more shocking evidence to come. But the knowledge already in existence sets a high bar.
Can the panel incriminate the Republican Party more broadly?
The committee famously features just two Republicans — Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), who serves as vice chair, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) — both of whom are vigorous Trump critics.
That leaves the wider GOP in the panel’s crosshairs, especially if it can pin culpability for specific misdeeds on other members of the party.
No fewer than 147 Republican members of Congress voted to invalidate the election results in some shape or form on the evening of the insurrection, with debris still littering the Capitol’s hallways.
Yet, at that time, senior members of the GOP were willing to acknowledge Trump’s culpability.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in February 2021 said on the Senate floor that Trump was “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.” In a recorded call with colleagues later obtained by two reporters for The New York Times, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called Trump’s actions “atrocious and totally wrong.”
But McConnell voted to acquit Trump on the impeachment charge in the Senate and McCarthy made his peace much more publicly, traveling to Mar-a-Lago to meet Trump. Last week, Trump endorsed McCarthy for reelection to the House.
The GOP would far rather talk about the issues bedeviling Biden than Jan. 6.
But if the committee can make a compelling case with fresh and additional evidence, Republicans may have little choice.
Can the Democrats put on a show?
For good or for bad, the theater of politics matters.
So, one question will be how compelling Democrats can make the hearings.
The first hearing is likely to be the most important of all, much as the first presidential debate in a series tends also to be the most vital.
All three major broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, have said they will shelve their regular programming and replace it with live coverage of the Thursday hearing. So too have CNN and MSNBC. Controversially, Fox News will not air the hearing live, instead confining such coverage to Fox Business.
Conservatives have taken umbrage at the decision by the committee to turn to a former president of ABC News, James Goldston, to help make Thursday’s presentation as compelling as possible.
Axios, which first reported Goldston’s involvement, wrote that he was “busily producing” the hearing “as if it were a blockbuster investigative special.”
We’re about to see the results.
Do the hearings change the political agenda?
There is little doubt that Thursday’s hearing will eclipse almost all the political news out of Washington. For that night at least, it will be the only show in town.
But how long will that effect last?
Trump allies have promised “counterprogramming” to push back on the narrative being advanced by the committee.
House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) is kicking off that effort Wednesday, at a morning news conference with House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and ardent Trump allies Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
Stefanik told Fox News that she and her colleagues were “pushing back against lame-duck Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s sham political witch hunt.”
More broadly, the White House has spent months on the defensive, embattled by a host of problems including inflation, high gas prices, an infant formula shortage and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The hearings will give Democrats a chance to put the GOP on the back foot — but for how long?
Can the panel shift public opinion?
Politically, this is the biggest question of all.
Many independent experts, and even some liberals, aren’t at all sure the answer is yes.
For all kinds of reasons, opinions around Jan. 6 have calcified.
While Democrats see Trump’s culpability as self-evident, many Republicans seem willing to dismiss anything the panel uncovers.
Meanwhile, a politically segmented media environment combines with the bias-reinforcing dynamics of social media to deepen those divisions.
That doesn’t mean the committee is wasting its time. New evidence regarding Jan. 6 is important by its nature.
The drama surrounding the work of the Jan. 6 committee ramped up Friday with the news that former Trump adviser Peter Navarro had been indicted on two charges of contempt of Congress.
The charges, each of which carries a maximum penalty of a $100,000 fine and one year of jail time, stem from Navarro’s refusal to cooperate with the House panel’s inquiries.
The new twist comes as the panel moves to the cusp of beginning public hearings. The first such event is due for Thursday.
Navarro, who on Friday initially announced his intention to defend himself, blasted the committee’s work and the manner in which he was arrested.
During his court appearance, he complained, “Who are these people? … This is not America. I mean, I was a distinguished public servant for four years, and nobody ever questioned my ethics. And they’re treating me in this fashion.”
Shortly afterward, speaking to reporters, he said he had been “intercepted” en route to Tennessee and placed in handcuffs and “leg irons.” He also sought to suggest his plight was simply an outgrowth of his support for former President Trump.
“They are not coming for me and Trump. They are coming for you,” he said, going on to detail the approximately 74 million people who voted for Trump at the 2020 election.
In fact, Navarro has been at the fore of propagating false theories of election fraud. He was also the leading proponent of a strategy known as the “Green Bay Sweep,” which was intended to reverse the election’s result.
Navarro’s next court appearance is scheduled for June 17, by which time the public hearings of the Jan. 6 panel will be well underway.
The effectiveness of those hearings will be judged according to two quite different criteria — the substantive information that is uncovered and the likely political effect.
On one hand, the importance of an investigation to look at such a serious assault on American democracy seems self-evident.
Back in April, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the committee, promised that the public hearings would “really blow the roof off the House.”
“This was not a coup directed at the president,” Raskin added in his remarks at a Georgetown University event. “It was a coup directed by the president against the vice president and against the Congress.”
On the other, there is deep skepticism, even among those who are supportive of the committee’s work, that the hearings will move the political needle.
That skepticism is rooted in the reality that there is plenty already known about the insurrection.
Trump was impeached 17 months ago for his role in inciting the riot. Given that a significant minority of the overall population — and a large majority of Republicans — continues to hold a favorable view of the former president, there is no obvious reason to believe the hearings will change their mind.
“Nothing they come up with is going to shift Trump or Trump’s base,” said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University who authored a 2017 book making the case for the then-president’s impeachment.
“Look at all the things that have come out, and, if anything, Trump’s approval has ticked upward, not downward.”
Lichtman argued that critics of the former president are being overly optimistic in believing that the impact of the forthcoming hearings could be analogous to the Watergate hearings in 1973 and 1974 that transfixed the public and culminated in former President Nixon’s resignation.
In today’s hyperpolarized media and political environment, he added, Trump and his supporters will simply “say it’s a witch hunt” — and largely escape political consequence.
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, took a similar view.
“The hearings will give a lot more depth and sense of intentionality in terms of what the public knows,” he said. “Having that on the record and having more knowledge is a good thing. Whether it affects anything politically is pretty dubious. So much of it happened in front of everyone’s eyes.”
Democrats can at least hope that the hearings will focus public attention on Trump, the insurrection and the complicity of other Republicans in it. Such subjects are more favorable terrain for President Biden’s party than current troubles such as inflation, soaring gas prices and a baby formula shortage.
But Republicans will go all-out to blast the committee, just as Navarro did on Friday.
The only other person indicted for refusing to comply with a subpoena in similar circumstances — former Trump chief strategist Stephen Bannon — used his initial court appearances in a similar way, promising that his charge would end up being “the misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.”
With Navarro and Bannon indicted and the public hearings looming, another act in the insurrection drama is about to begin.
But most of the public has already made up its mind as to who are the heroes and the villains.
Should the impeachment investigation involving Andrew Cuomo proceed to a vote, all 7 Court of Appeals judges involved will have been appointed by the New York Governor himself.
The New York state impeachment process is a bit unique in that following an impeachment vote in the Assembly, a court is formed consisting of members of the Senate as well as the seven members of the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.
Those judges – Rowan Wilson, Jenny Rivera, Leslie Stein, Eugene Fahey, Michael Garcia, Paul Feinman and Chief Judge Janet DiFiore – were all appointed by Cuomo between 2013 and 2017.
In an interview with NewsMax, former Rep. John Faso (R-NY) said that the Cuomo appointees are “mostly liberal … very liberal” and “they are all Democrats except one.”
“The seven judges could be instrumental in determining the outcome of a potential impeachment trial as they would make up 10% of the 70-person impeachment court,” Fox News analyzes.
The Political Insider reported in August that what separated New York from other states with their own nursing home directives is that the staff at the facilities felt pressured by the Governor.
Politifact confirmed the notion saying Cuomo left executives at nursing homes feeling that “they had no choice but to accept these patients” despite the threat of spreading the virus.
Michael Kraus, a Staten Island nursing home administrator, has alleged he and other executives of long-term care facilities were “petrified” of the Cuomo order and that his concerns were “shot down” by state officials.
“Many facilities vocalized it,” Kraus said in an interview with Fox News.
“They were petrified, but they were more petrified of the Department of Health … once it [my concern] was shot down, I never spoke [about it] again.”
Secretary to the Governor, Melissa DeRosa, admitted on a conference call in February that the administration hid information on COVID nursing home deaths from federal investigators.
For months the administration reported around 8,500 deaths, nearly 50% less than the confirmed number.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #16 on Feedspot’s “Top 70 Conservative Political Blogs, Websites & Influencers in 2021.”
A liberal lawyer who made headlines during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial when she joked about his then-13 year-old son Barron is reportedly joining Joe Biden’s administration.
Karlan Joins Biden Admin
Pamela Karlan has gone on leave from her Facebook Oversight Board position after she was tapped as principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Division, according to Politico.
She said in a statement that working with Facebook’s oversight board “to build a fairer and more effective approach to content moderation has been an honor.”
“Pam Karlan’s legal and civil rights expertise played an important part in shaping the Board, and we’re grateful for her contributions,” said board spokesman John Taylor.
“The Trustees and Board members congratulate Pam on her new role and wish her the very best,” he added.
Then-First Lady Melania Trump immediately fired back at Karlan on Twitter, writing, “A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.”
Kayleigh McEnany, Trump’s spokeswoman at the time, responded to Karlan’s joke as well.
“Only in the minds of crazed liberals is it funny to drag a 13-year-old child into the impeachment nonsense,” McEnany said in a statement, according to the New York Post.
“Pamela Karlan thought she was being clever and going for laughs, but she instead reinforced for all Americans that Democrats have no boundaries when it comes to their hatred of everything related to President Trump,” she added.
Karlan Apologizes…Kind Of
Karlan offered an apology that was backhanded, to say the least.
“I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that,” she said. “I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.”
This piece was written by James Samson on February 11, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.
Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster made a recent comment that will surely leave believers of the ‘deep state’ wondering.
McMaster, during an interview with “60 minutes,” stated there is a group of people within the White House who believe they are saving the world “from the President.”
He believes there are three groups of people operating within the administration.
“There is certainly one group of people there who are there to serve the elected president and to serve the country,” said McMaster.
“I think there are other groups there though, as well, a second group that is there really, instead of providing options to the elected president, they really want to advance their narrow agendas,” he admitted.
The third group is one Raw Story defines as “secret members.”
Regarding competing groups in the West Wing, former national security adviser H.R. McMaster says there’s one group of advisors “who cast themselves in the role of saving the country and maybe the world from the president.” https://t.co/YBUCccl25vpic.twitter.com/w7UMrFBGBx
President Trump recently accused a “deep state” at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) trying to slow down the testing of COVID vaccines.
“The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics,” he tweeted weeks ago.
“Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed, and saving lives!”
While McMaster contends there is a ‘deep state’ battling every administration, there hasn’t likely been quite at the level of those battling President Trump.
No. Mindless is having evidence and refusing to look or accept it. Mindless is seeing an impeachment process and allowing the MSM do all of YOUR homework. Mindless, is not believing in a deep state in 16, AND STILL BELIEVING NONE EXISTS IN 2020. #Landslide2020@realDonaldTrumphttps://t.co/QtOTLf73Dg
Recently released documents from the Department of Justice show multiple members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated the President engaged in some shady activity.
They “accidentally wiped” their phones after the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) requested them.
Meanwhile, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has voted to authorize over three dozen subpoenas and depositions of Obama-era officials.
The officials – which include former FBI Director James Comey – were involved in the 2016 Russia investigation into the Trump campaign.
These seem like ‘deep state’ actors, some of who engaged in a cover-up.
Newly released DOJ records show that multiple top members of Mueller’s investigative team claimed to have “accidentally wiped” at least 15 (!) phones used during the anti-Trump investigation after the DOJ OIG asked for the devies to be handed over. https://t.co/VVUnfZVolmpic.twitter.com/p50PnoCBse
On Monday, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters went on a social media rant against President Donald Trump over his handling of the coronavirus crisis, calling him an “incompetent idiot” who needs to “pray for forgiveness.”
‘Your ignorance & incompetence are appalling’
“Trump, stop congratulating yourself! You’re a failure & you’ve mishandled this #COVID19 disaster! You’re not knowledgeable & you don’t know more than experts & generals,” Waters wrote on Twitter. “Your ignorance & incompetence are appalling & you continue to demonstrate that every time you open your mouth!”
Trump, stop congratulating yourself! You’re a failure & you've mishandled this #COVID19 disaster! You're not knowledgeable & you don’t know more than experts & generals. Your ignorance & incompetence are appalling & you continue to demonstrate that every time you open your mouth!
“Trump, you incompetent idiot!,” she tweeted. “You sent 18 tons of PPE to China early but ignored warnings & called COVID19 concerns a hoax. You’ve endangered doctors, nurses, aids, [sic] orderlies, & janitors – all risking their lives to save ours. Pray 4 forgiveness for the harm that you’re causing!”
Trump, you incompetent idiot! You sent 18 tons of PPE to China early but ignored warnings & called COVID19 concerns a hoax. You've endangered doctors, nurses, aids, orderlies, & janitors – all risking their lives to save ours. Pray 4 forgiveness for the harm that you're causing!
Waters had accused President Trump on Sunday of ignoring the pandemic early on.
“As you know, we had an office of pandemic affairs basically in the office of the president that was shut down, closed down, not funded by the president of the United States,” Waters told MSNBC host Joy Reid. “That’s the kind of office that does the planning, that anticipates, that makes sure that supplies and everything that’s needed can be readily available when you have this kind of disaster. And so even though we didn’t have that kind of planning in addition to that, the early notifications I’m told were ignored.”
Maxine Waters takes Trump to the woodshed: "Trump, you incompetent idiot! You sent 18 tons of PPE to China early but ignored warnings & called COVID19 concerns a hoax," she tweeted https://t.co/JYFI20qKKE
“It’s been said over and over again that you cannot trust this president,” Waters told Reid. “Not only is he a liar, he does not believe in anything scientific.”
“So the President of the United States cannot be relied upon,” she added. “Someone said he needs to be quiet, he needs to shut his mouth.”
Despite Waters’ random and often nonsensical grumblings, the Trump administration continues to make strides in implementing testing nationwide, mask production and financial and other relief crucial to Americans during this crisis.