Democratic stalwart exits Congress—and says it’s time to pass the torch

Rep. Jerry Nadler, the longest-serving member of New York’s congressional delegation and a fixture of Democratic politics for more than three decades, is stepping down—and he says that it’s time for a new generation to lead.

The 78-year-old told The New York Times on Monday that he will not seek reelection in 2026, citing growing calls within the party for new leadership.

A younger person “can maybe do better, can maybe help us more,” he told the Times.

“This decision has not been easy. But I know in my heart it is the right one and that it is the right time to pass the torch to a new generation,” he added in a statement Tuesday.

Rep. Jerry Nadler sits beside New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.

The decision lands at a moment of transition for the Democratic Party, which has struggled to balance respect for veteran lawmakers who’ve defined its modern era with pressure from activists and younger voters to elevate a new slate of leaders. 

In his interview with the Times, Nadler pointed directly to President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race as evidence that the “necessity for generational change in the party” could no longer be ignored. 

“I’m not saying we should change over the entire party, but I think a certain amount of change is very helpful, especially when we face the challenge of Trump and his incipient fascism,” he said.

Tributes from Democratic leaders quickly followed. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called him “a champion, a fighter, and a trusted voice for New Yorkers,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries described him as “a relentless fighter for justice, civil rights, and liberties and the fundamental promise of equality for all.”

New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani also commended Nadler, one of his earliest endorsers.

“Jerry stood alongside gay and trans Americans when it was politically unpopular, voted with courage—not calculus—against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, stood steadfast alongside the first responders and families sickened after 9/11, and led efforts to hold a lawless Trump administration accountable,” he said in a statement.

Nadler’s retirement reshapes the political landscape in New York’s 12th Congressional District, a deep-blue Manhattan seat that spans the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, and Midtown. 

Though safely Democratic, the district now faces one of the most competitive primaries in the country. Nadler had already drawn a challenge from Liam Elkind, a 26-year-old activist who asked him earlier this year to “respectfully” step aside. 

New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani

On Monday, Elkind welcomed the news of Nadler’s retirement with praise.

“He has led this district and this country with humanity, kindness, and intelligence. We are better for his leadership,” he wrote on X.

Other potential contenders are already being floated. Assemblymember Micah Lasher, a longtime Nadler aide now serving in Albany, is expected to weigh a bid, while progressive groups are eyeing the open seat as an opportunity to push a new generation of leadership. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will almost certainly head to Congress: Nadler won reelection in 2022 with more than 80% of the vote.

Nadler’s congressional career began in 1992, when he won his seat in a special election after serving in the New York State Assembly. Over the years, he became one of the House’s most recognizable progressives and a staunch defender of abortion rights and judicial oversight. As chair of the House Judiciary Committee, he presided over President Donald Trump’s first impeachment in 2019. 

More recently, he championed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in 2022, which prohibits employment practices that discriminate against employees seeking accommodations due to pregnancy, childbirth, or other medical reasons.

Nadler is also the longest-serving Jewish member of Congress and a central figure in Manhattan politics. But like many of his longtime colleagues, Nadler faced mounting questions about how long the party could lean on its older leadership. 

Last year, he was ousted as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and replaced with a younger colleague. His exit now adds to a growing list of Democratic lawmakers stepping down, including Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis of Illinois and Dwight Evans of Pennsylvania, as well as Sens. Gary Peters of Michigan, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Tina Smith of Minnesota.

Nadler’s departure doesn't just set the stage for a high-stakes New York primary, but it also raises an important question: Is the Democratic Party ready to let a new generation lead?

What would it take for this GOP senator to caucus with Democrats?

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is somewhat open to caucusing with Democrats—under the right conditions.

In a newly released clip of a forthcoming interview with the podcast GD Politics, Murkowski said there’s a “possibility” she could become an independent and align with Democrats if they flip the Senate in 2026.

“There may be that possibility,” she said. “There is some openness to exploring something different than the status quo.”

Still, she made clear it wouldn’t be a wholesale shift. Murkowski said she’d make the move only if it served Alaskans and didn’t require her to fully embrace the Democratic platform. 

“As challenged as I think we may be on the Republican side, I don’t see the Democrats being much better,” she added. “I have to figure out how I can be most effective for the people that I serve.”

The comments arrive shortly before Tuesday’s release of her memoir, “Far from Home”—a fitting title for someone who splits her time between Washington, D.C., and Alaska, and often feels out of step with today’s GOP.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska gestures as she leaves the Senate chamber after the vote on witnesses during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol in January 2020.

According to CBS News, the book focuses on her life as a centrist in an increasingly polarized Congress. In 2002, Murkowski’s father, who was then Alaska’s new governor, appointed her to fill his vacant Senate seat—something she’s called “accurate” nepotism. But she went on to win a full term, and in 2010, she pulled off one of the most improbable comebacks in Senate history: winning reelection as a write-in candidate after losing her GOP primary to a more right-wing challenger.

“It’s a daily reminder of how I was returned to the United States Senate. It was not through the help or the assistance of the Republican Party; it was through the hope and the assistance and the persistence of Alaskans all across the board,” she told CBS.

In a new interview with Semafor, Murkowski admitted she’s thought about jumping ship from the Republican Party—if only because people keep asking her to.

“I would be not being honest with you if I said I’ve never been asked … ‘Why don’t you switch?’” she said. “Have I considered it? Yes, because I’ve been asked the question.”

It’s no mystery why. Murkowski has built a reputation as one of the few Republicans willing to break ranks. She voted against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, supported some of former President Joe Biden’s court nominees, and has openly criticized her colleagues’ deference to President Donald Trump. She’s also been candid about her party’s fear of challenging tech billionaire Elon Musk during his time in the Trump administration, citing concerns that he might fund primary challenges. 

As recently as December, Murkowski said she’s more comfortable without any party label at all.

“I’d rather be that person that is just known for trying to do right by the state and the people that I serve, regardless of party, and I’m totally good and comfortable with that,” she said.

But don’t expect a sudden switch. In that same December interview, Murkowski emphasized that she’s “still a Republican” and has “never shed my party label.” 

Plus, according to her interview with GD Politics, cooperation with Democrats would largely depend on them getting to 50 seats in the Senate—something that’s far from certain. Currently, Democrats have 47 seats, and 50 would mean that Republicans still have control of the chamber since a tie gets broken by the vice president, Republican JD Vance. If Murkowski caucused with Democrats in such a scenario, though, it would flip the chamber’s control to that party.

And despite her turbulent history with Trump—he backed a challenge against her in 2022—Murkowski told Semafor the two recently had a “very pleasant” call. She’s also weighing her vote on the GOP’s new tax bill, further proof that, for now, her Republican credentials remain intact.

If Democrats want to bring Murkowski into the fold, they’ll need more than wishful thinking. It’ll take Senate gains—and a party flexible enough to accommodate a center-right maverick.

Campaign Action

Crazed Republicans can’t stop obsessing over Joe Biden’s health

House Republicans are ramping up their investigation into President Joe Biden’s health, targeting a new round of former aides with interview requests.

GOP Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chair of the House Oversight Committee, announced on Wednesday that he’s now seeking testimony from more top Biden officials, including former chief of staff Ron Klain and senior adviser Anita Dunn. Also on Comer’s list are longtime adviser Mike Donilon, former deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed, and counselor Steve Ricchetti.

“The Committee requests your testimony to evaluate your eye-witness account of former President Biden’s decline,” Comer wrote in nearly identical letters, adding that the aides must agree to appear by June 11 or face a subpoena.

This latest batch of targets follows Comer’s round of demands last month, when he requested to question Biden’s personal physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, and White House staffers Anthony Bernal, Neera Tanden, Annie Tomasini, and Ashley Williams.

“These five former senior advisors were eyewitnesses to President Biden’s condition and operations within the Biden White House,” Comer said, claiming that they could shed light on who was really “calling the shots.”

It’s not clear what Comer expects to get out of this, but we won’t have to wait long to find out. 

On Tuesday, he told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that staff attorneys have already been in touch with the various aides’ legal teams and that he expects each official to testify voluntarily. Where that actually happens, and what the GOP even considers a “win” here, remains to be seen.

But even if this whole thing turns up nothing, Republicans will still have accomplished what they set out to do: keep the attacks on Biden coming. It’s all part of a larger GOP effort to undermine Biden’s legacy by painting him as unfit for office, even after leaving it. 

Ed Martin, pardon attorney for the Department of Justice 

Similarly, President Donald Trump’s pardon attorney for the Department of Justice, Ed Martin, is now digging into Biden’s end-of-term clemency decisions, including the mechanics of how they were approved.

Comer, who just wrapped up a failed 15-month impeachment probe, even floated the idea of having Biden testify before Congress over the use of an autopen. Despite MAGA’s breathless obsession, autopens are legal, and presidents have used them for years.

The GOP has seized on a string of stories to fuel its narrative: first, gossip that Biden’s team downplayed health concerns during his reelection bid, then the announcement of his metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis. Republicans immediately—and without evidence—accused his staff of orchestrating a cover-up.

While Biden’s health decline was evident during his chaotic final debate against Trump, there’s no public proof that others were running the show for him or that he couldn’t perform the core duties of the presidency. His allies have rejected that framing outright.

But those facts haven’t slowed the GOP down. According to CNN, the House Judiciary Committee is also preparing to interview David Weiss, the former Hunter Biden special counsel, behind closed doors this week. And Republicans have also been chasing two DOJ tax prosecutors involved in the Hunter Biden probe.

These moves are easier with a compliant House and White House, and the political benefits are obvious. The investigations feed their narrative, keep Biden in the headlines, and pull focus from GOP turmoil. Even Comer admits as much.

“It is a whole different environment,” he told CNN.

In other words, the hunt continues.

Campaign Action

Fox News host’s description of Jan. 6 rioters will make your blood boil

Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy described the insurrectionists who violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as “political dissidents” during a rant about federal law enforcement on Friday.

Campos-Duffy, who is perhaps best known for appearing on MTV’s “The Real World” in the 1990s, made her claim during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.”

“We have an FBI, a DOD, and a Homeland Security that has given us zero confidence. They've said nothing with a border open and terrorists flowing over the borders. They've been directing agents to go after political dissidents from J6, from January 6, instead of going after terrorists,” Duffy said while commenting on the New Orleans attacker who was reported to be inspired by ISIS.

Campos-Duffy’s sympathetic description of the insurrections echoes that of Donald Trump, who has floated the idea of pardoning them and has referred to the armed attack as a “day of love.”

In reality, the attackers violently forced their way into the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from fulfilling one of its longest-running and most important functions: certifying the presidential election results.

At least seven people died as a result of the Jan. 6 attack, a direct contradiction to the casual language that Campos-Duffy used to describe the rioters. More than 1,200 people have been arrested and charged in connection with the insurrection, with some charges including sedition against the United States. In fact, Trump was also charged—and even impeached—for his role in inciting the attack.

Campos-Duffy’s underlying argument that the U.S. government fails to go after terrorists is also faulty. Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. military executed a drone strike in 2022 that killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, who, alongside Osama bin Laden, led the terrorist group Al Qaeda and assisted in the planning of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The drone strike was a continuation of policy from Trump’s predecessor President Barack Obama, who ordered the operation that successfully killed bin Laden in 2011.

Looks like the latest Fox News rant was just that—a rant.

Campaign Action

How Trump plans to seize the power of the purse From Congress

The second-term president likely will seek to cut off spending that lawmakers have already appropriated, setting off a constitutional struggle within the branches. If successful, he could wield the power to punish perceived foes.

By Molly Redden, for ProPublica

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Donald Trump is entering his second term with vows to cut a vast array of government services and a radical plan to do so. Rather than relying on his party’s control of Congress to trim the budget, Trump and his advisers intend to test an obscure legal theory holding that presidents have sweeping power to withhold funding from programs they dislike.

“We can simply choke off the money,” Trump said in a 2023 campaign video. “For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending.”

His plan, known as “impoundment,” threatens to provoke a major clash over the limits of the president’s control over the budget. The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to appropriate the federal budget, while the role of the executive branch is to dole out the money effectively. But Trump and his advisers are asserting that a president can unilaterally ignore Congress’ spending decisions and “impound” funds if he opposes them or deems them wasteful.

Trump’s designs on the budget are part of his administration’s larger plan to consolidate as much power in the executive branch as possible. This month, he pressured the Senate to go into recess so he could appoint his cabinet without any oversight. (So far, Republicans who control the chamber have not agreed to do so.) His key advisers have spelled out plans to bring independent agencies, such as the Department of Justice, under political control.

If Trump were to assert a power to kill congressionally approved programs, it would almost certainly tee up a fight in the federal courts and Congress and, experts say, could fundamentally alter Congress’ bedrock power.

“It’s an effort to wrest the entire power of the purse away from Congress, and that is just not the constitutional design,” said Eloise Pasachoff, a Georgetown Law professor who has written about the federal budget and appropriations process. “The president doesn’t have the authority to go into the budget bit by bit and pull out the stuff he doesn’t like.”

Trump’s claim to have impoundment power contravenes a Nixon-era law that forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements as well as a string of federal court rulings that prevent presidents from refusing to spend money unless Congress grants them the flexibility.

Elon Musk and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during a campaign rally on Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Butler, Pennsylvania.

In an op-ed published Wednesday, tech billionaire Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who are overseeing the newly created, nongovernmental Department of Government Efficiency, wrote that they planned to slash federal spending and fire civil servants. Some of their efforts could offer Trump his first Supreme Court test of the post-Watergate Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the president to spend the money Congress approves. The law allows exceptions, such as when the executive branch can achieve Congress’ goals by spending less, but not as a means for the president to kill programs he opposes.

Trump and his aides have been telegraphing his plans for a hostile takeover of the budgeting process for months. Trump has decried the 1974 law as “not a very good act” in his campaign video and said, “Bringing back impoundment will give us a crucial tool with which to obliterate the Deep State.”

Musk and Ramaswamy have seized that mantle, writing, “We believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.”

The once-obscure debate over impoundment has come into vogue in MAGA circles thanks to veterans of Trump’s first administration who remain his close allies. Russell Vought, Trump’s former budget director, and Mark Paoletta, who served under Vought as the Office of Management and Budget general counsel, have worked to popularize the idea from the Trump-aligned think tank Vought founded, the Center for Renewing America.

On Friday, Trump announced he had picked Vought to lead OMB again. “Russ knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government, and he will help us return Self Governance to the People,” Trump said in a statement.

Vought was also a top architect of the controversial Project 2025. In private remarks to a gathering of MAGA luminaries uncovered by ProPublica, Vought boasted that he was assembling a “shadow” Office of Legal Counsel so that Trump is armed on day one with the legal rationalizations to realize his agenda.

“I don’t want President Trump having to lose a moment of time having fights in the Oval Office about whether something is legal or doable or moral,” Vought said.

Trump spokespeople and Vought did not respond to requests for comment.

The prospect of Trump seizing vast control over federal spending is not merely about reducing the size of the federal government, a long-standing conservative goal. It is also fueling new fears about his promises of vengeance.

A similar power grab led to his first impeachment. During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act.

Pasachoff predicted that, when advantageous, the incoming Trump administration will attempt to achieve the goals of impoundment without picking such a high-profile fight.

Trump tested piecemeal ways beyond the Ukrainian arms imbroglio to withhold federal funding as a means to punish his perceived enemies, said Bobby Kogan, a former OMB adviser under Biden and the senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning think tank American Progress. After devastating wildfires in California and Washington, Trump delayed or refused to sign disaster declarations that would have unlocked federal relief aid because neither state had voted for him. He targeted so-called sanctuary cities by conditioning federal grants on local law enforcement’s willingness to cooperate with mass deportation efforts. The Biden administration eventually withdrew the policy.

Trump and his aides claim there is a long presidential history of impoundment dating back to Thomas Jefferson.

Most historical examples involve the military and cases where Congress had explicitly given presidents permission to use discretion, said Zachary Price, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. Jefferson, for example, decided not to spend money Congress had appropriated for gun boats — a decision the law, which appropriated money for “a number not exceeding fifteen gun boats” using “a sum not exceeding fifty thousand dollars,” authorized him to make.

President Donald Trump listens while acting OMB Director Russell Vought speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Oct. 9, 2019.

President Richard Nixon took impoundment to a new extreme, wielding the concept to gut billions of dollars from programs he simply opposed, such as highway improvements, water treatment, drug rehabilitation and disaster relief for farmers. He faced overwhelming pushback both from Congress and in the courts. More than a half dozen federal judges and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the appropriations bills at issue did not give Nixon the flexibility to cut individual programs.

Vought and his allies argue the limits Congress placed in 1974 are unconstitutional, saying a clause in the Constitution obligating the president to “faithfully execute” the law also implies his power to forbid its enforcement. (Trump is fond of describing Article II, where this clause lives, as giving him “the right to do whatever I want as president.”)

The Supreme Court has never directly weighed in on whether impoundment is constitutional. But it threw water on that reasoning in an 1838 case, Kendall v. U.S., about a federal debt payment.

“To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible,” the justices wrote.

During his cutting spree, Nixon’s own Justice Department argued roughly the same.

“With respect to the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds,” William Rehnquist, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel whom Nixon later appointed to the Supreme Court, warned in a 1969 legal memo, “we must conclude that existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.”

Campaign Action

House of pain: GOP launches new civil war in last days of the election

Less than two weeks remain until the election that will determine which political party controls the House of Representatives, but House Republicans are already battling over how they would run the chamber come January 2025.

Control of the House remains a toss-up, with forecasting models giving Democrats a slight edge to regain the majority. But if Republicans do maintain control, it looks like they will have a difficult time even agreeing on how to govern themselves, Politico reported

While Speaker Mike Johnson and his allies would gladly nuke the archaic “motion to vacate” rule, a small group of right-wing members wants to preserve the provision that allows a single member to force a vote to oust the speaker of the House, according to Politico. That same faction used this tool to boot Kevin McCarthy in October 2023, a mere 269 days after he was elected speaker following a humiliating 15-round voting marathon.

The latest report of infighting is just another embarrassing display from the GOP, which has barely been able to govern with a narrow majority.

When Republicans regained the House majority in 2023, the squabbling was so bad that barely any legislation was passed that year. The New York Times reported that the GOP majority passed just 27 bills that became law, far fewer than the 248 bills passed by a Democratic majority in 2022.

Republicans struggled to pass even basic messaging bills that reeked of partisanship. For example, it took multiple tries to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas—a sham impeachment that the Senate then rejected.

What’s more, GOP lawmakers have been fighting with each other—and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has been at the center of many of those fights.

Greene and Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado had a fight on the House floor, with Greene calling Boebert a “little bitch.”

Other Republicans then criticized Greene after she made an idiotic statement falsely blaming the government for creating Hurricane Helene to impact Republicans’ chances of winning the election.

Ultimately, the chaos and frustration GOP lawmakers created in the House caused a number of members on both sides of the aisle to announce their retirement earlier this year.

It’s time for adults to run the show and for voters to put Republicans back in the minority, where they belong.

Looking to volunteer to help get out the vote? Click here to view multiple ways you can help reach voters—textbanking, phonebanking, letters, postcards, parties, canvassing. We’ve got you covered!

With GOP poised to take the Senate, Democrats must do this to stop them

Every vote matters—more than ever. 

The latest poll from Siena College for The New York Times suggests Republicans are on track to retake the Senate, with their candidates leading in Montana—which is held by Democratic Sen. Jon Tester—as well as in Florida and Texas, Democrats’ two best pickup opportunities. 

With the retirement of Sen. Joe Manchin, Republicans are all but sure to nab his seat in dark-red West Virginia. If this poll’s results bear out, Democrats’ 51-49 Senate majority would slip to a 49-51 minority, assuming they win in every other contested Senate seat they currently hold.

This should energize every Democrat to get out to vote and drive turnout to record levels. And there’s some evidence that may already be happening.

In Montana, Tester faces Republican Tim Sheehy, a political newcomer. The Donald Trump-esque play of presenting nonexpertise as being a “political outsider” appears to have resonated in the Big Sky State. The Times poll shows Tester down 8 percentage points, with 44% to Sheehy’s 52% among likely voters. However, 538’s polling average shows a closer race, with Sheehy ahead by 5.4 points.

Losing this seat and Manchin’s would effectively halt the agenda of a President Kamala Harris if she were elected this year. It would slow down cabinet appointments or force her to use acting secretaries. It would enable politicized impeachment trials if Republicans also held their House majority. Perhaps most consequently of all, a Republican Senate majority would be able to swat down any of Harris’ potential Supreme Court nominees.

Given Tester’s long odds of holding his seat, Democrats turn to their two best Senate pickup opportunities: Texas and Florida. 

Vying for his third term, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lead’s Democrat Colin Allred by 4 points, 48% to 44% percent, in what the Times calls Democrats’ “best opportunity” for flipping a seat. The poll’s result is in line with 538’s polling average for the race, which shows Cruz ahead by 3.6 points.

In Florida, Republican Sen. Rick Scott holds a large 9-point lead over Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, 49% to 40%. That being said, 538’s polling average shows a tighter race, with Scott half that lead, at 4.5 points. 

As Daily Kos reported in September, polls are not election results, and because of that, “they can be changed by donating, mobilizing, and voting for Democratic candidates.”

Turnout is already breaking records. In New Mexico, early voting indicates a historic level of turnout. The same goes for Ohio, whose most populous county saw a higher level of first-day early voting this year than in 2016. Ohio is also where Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown is fighting to keep his seat. 538’s polling average shows him leading by 2.3 points.

But Democrats need to keep the momentum. Mobilizing their voters will be crucial in not only defending vulnerable seats but also expanding their majority where possible. Grassroots efforts, shoe-leather canvassing, and targeted outreach can make a difference in galvanizing support and turnout.

You can help turn out the vote for the election by simply chatting to your neighbors. This is a cool one! Click here to sign up for Daily Kos/Indivisible’s Neighbor2Neighbor get-out-the-vote program.

House GOP’s latest attempt to cling to power is just so lazy

Members of Congress are heading home for the final reelection sprint, and you can almost hear the scurrying footsteps as Republican lawmakers flee from their duties. They’re vacating the Capitol earlier than usual, and that’s not a shock. As Daily Kos reported, House Republicans have trouble with actual governing—but when it comes to vindictive “investigations,” their energy is endless

This exodus will take place after a Wednesday night House vote on a funding bill that will keep the government open through Dec. 20. The continuing resolution is expected to pass, but it’s worth keeping an eye on which Republicans vote against it—and why, other than to throw spokes in the wheels of legislative efficiency. 

Congress will return after the November election to a long to-do list, including annual defense authorization funding, a farm bill that needs extending, and tax and health care provisions that need finalizing. As Punchbowl News writes, “all of this is being left undone as lawmakers head home to take care of their ultimate must-have—getting reelected.” 

But instead of focusing on, you know, keeping the government running, the House GOP is going after President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and a Cabinet member. 

On Wednesday, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee announced it is investigating the Biden-Harris administration for flying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Pennsylvania ahead of the 2024 presidential election, alleging that he was in effect campaigning for Harris.

“If the Biden-Harris Administration attempted to use a foreign leader to benefit the Vice President’s presidential campaign, this is an abuse of power and misuse of taxpayer dollars,” the committee wrote in a statement on X. 

Another misuse of taxpayer dollars would be to use them to fund futile investigations, hearings, and impeachment efforts. 

The fractured and feckless House GOP has more lofty plans when Congress comes back in November: Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul on Tuesday announced a resolution to hold Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt of Congress for not appearing before the committee on days when Blinken was in Egypt, France, and at the United Nations General Assembly doing his actual job. The committee demanded that Blinken show up to testify on the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The full House could vote to hold Blinken in contempt of Congress, and kick it up to the Justice Department. That seems like an important objective when their efforts to impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Biden all went nowhere. 

Republicans’ focus on all the wrong issues highlights their struggle to show Americans that they are actually working to improve their lives. However, this hasn’t stopped them from resorting to familiar obstructionist tactics. 

While Wednesday’s stopgap government spending bill may have the votes, the future remains uncertain. House Speaker Mike Johnson has promised to torpedo the so-called Christmas omnibus bill, which has historically been used to fund the government in one fell swoop. His obstinance means Congress members may not be able to return home in time for the holidays. Bah humbug.

“There won’t be a Christmas omnibus,” Johnson vowed at a Tuesday press conference.

As Americans struggle with a housing affordability crisis, slashed reproductive rights, and high food costs, Republicans are running fool’s errands as they keep targeting Biden and administration officials who will be out of office come January. 

Who needs to fund the government anyway? 

House Republican wants to have attorney general arrested just because

GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, best known for fabricating her entire life story, told Fox News that she has a plan to get the sergeant-at-arms to arrest Attorney General Merrick Garland. 

“Several months ago, I introduced a resolution for something called inherent contempt of Congress. This is something that Congress has the authority to do, and it hasn’t been done since the early 1900’s,” she told host Maria Bartiromo on Monday. 

Luna was responding to questions about the Justice Department’s announcement that it would not prosecute Garland for not turning over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.

“And what that allows Congress to do is really be the punitive arm and really hold Garland accountable by using the sergeant-at-arms to essentially go and get him,” Luna went on, “as well as the tapes, bring him to the well of the house and really be a check-and-balance on the Department of Justice.”

Like most of what Luna says, there are all kinds of facts being misrepresented here. For one, her assertion that she introduced her inherent contempt of Congress resolution “several months ago” is belied by the fact that she actually announced it on May 7. And while that is technically more than one month, it is far less than several months. Though, to be fair, her announcement could have been missed, since it came the same day that Stormy Daniels was testifying … in Trump’s criminal trial.

The sergeant-at-arms is "the chamber’s primary law enforcement official and protocol officer, responsible for maintaining security on the House floor and the House side of the U.S. Capitol complex.” 

The case from the “early 1900’s” that Luna is referring to is something some legal scholars felt was more apropos to the unwillingness to comply with requests from Congress by the Trump administration.

The Teapot Dome scandal, which involved President Warren G. Harding’s Secretary of the Interior Albert Bacon Fall’s no-bid contract to lease federal oil fields in Teapot Dome, Wyoming, happened in 1922. Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty was heavily criticized at the time for not more thoroughly investigating Fall, who was later convicted of taking a $100,000 bribe.

The scandal escalated to the Senate committee subpoenaing Mally S. Daugherty, the attorney general’s brother. 

When Mally Daugherty refused to show up to testify before Congress, the Senate Sergeant at Arms David S. Barry deputized John J. McGrain to arrest him and bring him to Washington to testify.

The Republicans’ fixation on getting audio, despite having already received the entire transcript of Hur’s interview with Biden, has been a transparently political endeavor. Hur, a Republican, released a 375-page report in February saying that no charges were warranted and that Biden had likely kept the documents as a private citizen by “mistake.”

Since then, House Republicans voted to hold Garland in contempt. Speaker Mike Johnson vowed to take the Garland contempt case to court after the DOJ announced it planned no further action. But whether Johnson will bring Luna’s resolution to a vote remains to be seen.

There has been very little tangible action that has come out of the GOP’s neverending political theater. This past year it spent an inordinate amount of time attacking Biden’s border security while trying to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas—a stunt that failed miserably. 

Luna’s newest resolution is the GOP’s latest political stunt to create a cloud of doubt over Biden’s reelection campaign against convicted felon Trump.

Hopium Chronicles' Simon Rosenberg joins Markos to discuss the “red wave-ification” of the economy and how prepared Democrats are for November. There is still work to do but we have a better candidate—and we have the edge.

Campaign Action

Donald Trump says he’d consider Ken Paxton for US attorney general

Trump told a reporter in Texas this weekend that Paxton is “a very talented guy.”

By Jasper Scherer, The Texas Tribune

Former President Donald Trump said he would consider tapping Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for U.S. attorney general if he wins a second term in the White House, calling his longtime ally “a very talented guy” and praising his tenure as Texas’ chief legal officer.

“I would, actually,” Trump said Saturday when asked by a KDFW-TV reporter if he would consider Paxton for the national post. “He’s very, very talented. I mean, we have a lot of people that want that one and will be very good at it. But he’s a very talented guy.”

Paxton has long been a close ally of Trump, famously waging an unsuccessful legal challenge to Trump’s 2020 election loss in four battleground states. He also spoke at the pro-Trump rally that preceded the deadly U.S. Capitol riot in January 2021.

Paxton’s loyalty was rewarded with an endorsement from Trump in the 2022 primary, which helped the attorney general fend off three prominent GOP challengers.

Trump also came to Paxton’s defense when he was impeached last year for allegedly accepting bribes and abusing the power of his office to help a wealthy friend and campaign donor. After Paxton was acquitted in the Texas Senate, Trump claimed credit, citing his “intervention” on his Truth Social platform, where he denounced the proceedings and threatened political retribution for Republicans who backed the impeachment.

“I fought for him when he had the difficulty and we won,” he told KDFW. “He had some people really after him, and I thought it was really unfair.”

Trump’s latest comments, delivered at the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Dallas, come after a series of recent polls have shown the presumptive Republican nominee leading President Joe Biden in a handful of key battleground states.

Paxton has also seen his political prospects rise in recent months, after prosecutors agreed in March to drop three felony counts of securities fraud that had loomed over Paxton for nearly his entire tenure as attorney general. The resolution of the nine-year-old case, along with Paxton’s impeachment acquittal in the Senate last fall, has brought him closer than ever to a political career devoid of legal drama.

Still, Paxton’s critics say he is far from vindicated. He remains under federal investigation for the same allegations that formed the basis of his impeachment, and he continues to face a whistleblower lawsuit from former deputies who said they were illegally fired for reporting Paxton to law enforcement. A separate lawsuit from the state bar seeks to penalize Paxton for his 2020 election challenge, which relied on discredited claims of election fraud.

If nominated, Paxton would need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The chamber is narrowly divided along party lines, with Democrats holding a 51-49 majority. One of the most prominent Republican members, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, has been an outspoken critic of Paxton, while Paxton has openly entertained the idea of challenging Cornyn in 2026.

Paxton is not the only Texan Trump has floated for a high-profile spot in his potential administration. In February, he said Gov. Greg Abbott is “absolutely” on his short list of potential vice presidential candidates. Abbott has since downplayed his interest in the job.

Campaign Action

Tracking URL: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/20/donald-trump-ken-paxton-attorney-general/