Trump proves that he has no idea what the Constitution is—again

Attempting to deflect from courts repeatedly ruling against his immigration policy, President Donald Trump lied to reporters on Monday, claiming that the courts fabricated the need for cases to be heard—despite the right to a trial being a constitutional law for more than 234 years.

“The courts have all of a sudden, out of nowhere, they said, ‘maybe you have to have trials.’ Trials, we’re going to have 5 million trials? Doesn’t work, doesn’t work. You wouldn’t have a country left,” he said.

Trump has been under fire for denying detainees due process. Students like Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk have been abducted for their pro-Palestinian advocacy, and legal U.S. resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia was wrongly captured and deported to El Salvador.

On April 30, a court ordered the release of Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian immigrant who was held by the Department of Homeland Security while it tried to find a reason for his deportation.

Contrary to Trump’s statement, the U.S. Constitution explicitly lays out the right to a trial in the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Similarly, the Seventh Amendment notes:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

These rights were part of the ten amendments ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, and nothing in U.S. law or Trump’s executive orders have nullified them. The Sixth Amendment ensures that accusations leveled by the government against people have to be proven in a court of law and not just by royal fiat, as was done by the British government in the colonial era.

Trump’s unconstitutional remarks come just one day after he told NBC “I don’t know” when asked if the president needs to uphold the Constitution. Like every president before him, Trump took an oath of office, making it clear that this was a core element of his presidential duties.

The presidential oath of office states:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The oath is not ambiguous, and defense of the Constitution is not optional.

Trump’s ignorance of U.S. law and history was also on display when he recently argued that the Declaration of Independence was a “declaration of unity and love and respect.” The document famously severed the relationship between colonists and England, leading to the bloody Revolutionary War where hundreds of thousands died.

Of course, Trump is the only president who has been impeached twice. In both instances, he was found to be in violation of the Constitution.

No wonder he thinks the right to a trial came “out of nowhere.”

Campaign Action

Here’s how Trump could pull off an authoritarian third term

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

Seems pretty clear-cut, right? 

But read carefully—”no person shall be elected” to the office. And therein lies the keys to Donald Trump’s fantasies of a third term, saying to NBC’s Kristen Welker on Sunday, “There are methods which you could do it.”

So how exactly would Trump become president without being elected president? 

Is Vance loyal enough to give up his hard-earned power were he to win the presidency?

One way, Trump said, would be to swap tickets with Vice President JD Vance. He would run on a ticket with Vance and get elected vice president. Then, Vance would give up the office out of the goodness of his heart and resign, or maybe Trump would just shiv him, who knows. Trump wouldn’t care either way. Regardless, he would then become president. 

Except that won’t work. 

The 12th Amendment says, “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

Well, that seems pretty clear-cut, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, that’s not the only avenue for Trump to try and sneak in. 

The current order of presidential succession is: 

  1. Vice President

  2. Speaker of the House

  3. President Pro Tempore of the Senate

  4. Secretary of State

We’ve already noted that the first is clearly off the table. However, the rest are not. 

The Constitution doesn’t actually set requirements for speaker of the House, saying only, “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” 

While every speaker has been a member of the House, it’s clear that there’s nothing requiring that to be the case. Hence, a Republican House could simply elect Trump as speaker, and then elevate him after both the president and the vice president resigned to pave his return to power. 

A plain text reading of the Constitution makes this absolutely possible, though the courts would have to wrestle with the intent of both the 12th and the 22nd Amendments—which collectively make clear that really, two presidential terms is enough. But in this case, Trump wouldn’t be elected to the presidency, he would be elevated to the job. 

Related |‘I’m not joking’: Trump gets serious about running for illegal third term

The more practical impediment to this scenario is that two people would now need to surrender their chances to be president of the United States so fucking Trump could continue trashing the country and the world. People don’t want that, not even Republicans, and that’s before Trump’s policies really do a number on our economy. 

Not to mention, those two people will both have gone through a grueling national campaign, won the votes of tens of millions, and for what? To quit and give it all up right after taking the oath to office? 

Moving down the list, president pro tempore of the Senate is supposed to preside over the Senate in the absence of the vice president (hence the Latin “for the time being”), which the Constitution pretends is the president of the Senate (and in practice, just means a tie-breaking vote if necessary). 

Like the House speaker, the Constitution doesn’t provide any qualifications for the role, so by tradition, the majority party picks its oldest member for the mostly ceremonial position. It is currently Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Presumably a Republican Senate could pick Trump as president pro tempore. But that would require the House to be in Republican hands as well, otherwise a Democratic speaker would ascend to the top. At that point, assuming the whole Republican Party is singing from the same choir book, it would just be easier for the House to make him speaker. 

And finally, there’s that secretary of state job. Imagine Trump as secretary of state? Dear god. In any case, it would be a short-term charade. But now you’re talking about four people giving up their chance to be president—the elected president, the elected vice president, the speaker of the House, and the president pro tempore of the Senate. Trump may be deluded enough to think that many people would clear the path for him, but that would fly in the face of human nature. A not-president Trump would have zero leverage over an actual president

And of course, that’s still assuming that the effort would survive legal challenges based on the 22nd Amendment. After all, it’s clear what the framers of that amendment intended—to prevent another Franklin D. Roosevelt from happening. That is, to prevent another president from entrenching themselves in the Oval Office. 

But it does say a lot about Trump that rather than focus on the job at hand, he’s obsessing over a third term. He wants power for the sake of power itself, jealous of despots like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Of course, he’s going to indulge in these sorts of fantasies. 

Trump calls himself a king. But we know we are not a nation of kings—and we never will be. Get your Daily Kos T-shirt or hat to spread the message and wear it with pride: No Kings.

Why Republicans plan to impeach judges who haven’t done anything wrong

Congressional Cowards is a weekly series highlighting the worst Donald Trump defenders on Capitol Hill, who refuse to criticize him—no matter how disgraceful or lawless his actions.

Republicans in the House and Senate were quick to follow Donald Trump's March 18 orders to impeach federal judges who ruled against his illegal actions.

But when pressed about which high crimes and misdemeanors the judges committed to warrant such an extreme measure, Republicans had no good answer.

Instead, the only "crime" they came up with was that the judges didn't let the lawless president trample over the Constitution to do whatever he wants, whether that be deporting immigrants without due process; letting co-President Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency bros access sensitive government systems, shut down federal agencies, and chaotically fire federal employees; or remove health data from government websites because it was tangentially related to “gender identity.”

For example, CNN host Kasie Hunt asked Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio what “high crimes or misdemeanors” these judges committed. 

Jordan replied with what can only be described as verbal diarrhea. 

“All I’m saying is, if you’re acting in a political fashion and not just following the law, the ruling on the law, and I would argue that frankly just his ruling in and of itself, remember the Constitution is pretty clear, Article II Section I, very first sentence, says the power in the executive branch shall be vested in a president of the United States. The president has the authority,” Jordan said.

Of course Jordan left out that Article III of the Constitution says that judicial power extends to “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”—which is what the judges were doing when plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration was violating U.S. laws while carrying out its destructive agenda.

Rep. Brendan Gill of Texas, who filed articles of impeachment against the judge who tried to stop Trump’s illegal deportations of Venezuelan immigrants (an order the Trump administration ignored), was also asked which impeachable offenses the judge committed—and had a terrible response.

“This is for usurping the executive's authority, for demeaning the impartiality of the court by making a politicized ruling, and forcing a constitutional crisis,” Gill said on Newsmax. “That is a high crime and misdemeanor.”

Other Republicans also backed Trump and Musk’s call to impeach judges who rule against the administration.

“America is a Republic, not a dictatorship of the judiciary. It's time to get rid of the political activists masquerading as judges and re-establish proper separation of powers,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida wrote in a post on X. “That's why I'm proud to announce that I will be joining my colleagues in impeaching ALL the activist judges who are unconstitutionally blocking President Trump's agenda.”

And Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said he was going to introduce a law that would ban judges from being able to order nationwide injunctions.

“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration - a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” Hawley said, without acknowledging that maybe it’s because no other administration has ever initiated so many lawless actions that violate the Constitution.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley didn’t explicitly say he supported impeaching the judges, but he made it clear he believes what the judges did was wrong—and will use his powerful committee to go after those judges.

“Another day, another judge unilaterally deciding policy for the whole country. This time to benefit foreign gang members,” Grassley wrote in a post on X. “If the Supreme Court or Congress doesn’t fix, we’re headed towards a constitutional crisis. Senate Judiciary Cmte taking action.”

And it seems that Musk read Grassley’s comment as being supportive of impeachment, because after Trump’s demand to impeach the judges, Musk donated to Grassley and six other Republicans who have supported the effort to boot them, The New York Times reported.

From the Times’ report:

Mr. Musk contributed on Wednesday to Representatives Eli Crane of Arizona, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin and Brandon Gill of Texas. He also donated to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, according to two of the people briefed on the matter.

“This is a judicial coup,” Musk wrote on X of a court ruling that blocked Trump from banning transgender people from the military. “We need 60 senators to impeach the judges and restore rule of the people.”

Of course, it takes 67 senators to impeach—a fact you’d think Musk, who Trump and Republicans have framed as a genius, would know.

Ultimately, this impeachment effort is futile.

Even if House Republicans somehow succeed in impeaching these judges, there is no way that Democratic senators would vote to convict and remove them in an impeachment trial.

The end result of this ridiculous posturing: making judges fear for their own safety as they receive death threats for their legally sound rulings, thanks to Republicans’ vile rhetoric.

Thank you to the Daily Kos community who continues to fight so hard with Daily Kos. Your reader support means everything. We will continue to have you covered and keep you informed, so please donate just $3 to help support the work we do.

Trump spends weekend in full dictator mode—plus golf

President Donald Trump thrust the country even further into a constitutional crisis over the weekend with a series of blatantly illegal actions that left legal scholars sounding alarm bells about the future of the United States.

Not only has Trump declared speech he doesn’t like to be illegal, he is even ignoring court orders as part of his deportation quest.

“Court order defied. First of many as I've been warning and start of true constitutional crisis,” Mark Zaid, a lawyer whom Trump targeted by removing his security clearance, wrote in a post on X. 

Zaid also predicted that the actions Trump took this weekend “[u]ltimately will lead to Trump impeachment proceedings” if Democrats win control of Congress.

Trump began his past weekend by baselessly accusing media outlets that do not publish universally positive news about him of engaging in unlawful activity, saying in a nakedly partisan speech at the Department of Justice on Friday, “It’s totally illegal what they do. I just hope you can all watch for it, but it’s totally illegal." 

President Donald Trump waves from the stairs of Air Force One upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on. March 17, 2025

On the same day, Trump signed an executive order targeting the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, revoking security clearances of lawyers who work at the firm, and saying he will cancel the contracts of any companies or entities that are represented by the law firm’s attorneys. 

He targeted this law firm because it hired a prosecutor who worked on former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia. Trump also targeted the firm because it employed a lawyer who worked at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which successfully prosecuted Trump for falsifying business records.

Trump had already targeted two other large law firms—Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling—for similar reasons, all an attempt to try to scare lawyers out of representing people or causes Trump doesn’t like.

When Trump issued the new executive order against Paul, Weiss, a federal judge had already blocked part of Trump’s order against Perkins Coie, whose lawyers Trump tried to ban from federal buildings. U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell accused the Trump administration of illegally retaliating against the firm, which she said “sends little chills down my spine,” The Washington Post reported.

Not content with that illegality, Trump also effectively axed seven federal agencies created and funded by Congress, including the government-funded media outlet Voice of America. It was the latest time Trump ignored Congress’ directives by making the unilateral decision to cancel congressionally appropriated spending—many of which have already been overturned by federal judges. 

On Saturday, Trump invoked an 18th century law that the United States once used to shamefully lock up Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II, using it to justify deporting immigrants without due process.

Trump declared that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a foreign terrorist organization and an invading force, and used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—which allows for noncitizens to be deported without due process if the president declares that the U.S. is at war—to say that anyone he deems a member of Tren de Aragua will be subject to “immediate apprehension, detention, and removal, and further that they shall not be permitted residence in the United States.”

“The United States is not at war, nor has it been invaded. The president’s anticipated invocation of wartime authority—which is not needed to conduct lawful immigration enforcement operations—is the latest step in an accelerating authoritarian playbook,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman, whose organization sued the Trump administration over the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, said in a news release. 

“From improperly apprehending American citizens, to violating the ability of communities to peacefully worship, to now improperly trying to invoke a law that is responsible for some of our nation’s most shameful actions, this administration’s immigration agenda is as lawless as it is harmful,” she continued.

In this photo provided by El Salvador's presidential press office, prison guards transfer deportees from the U.S., alleged to be Venezuelan gang members, to the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador on March 16, 2025.

Trump put more than 230 Venezuelans he accused of being Tren de Aragua members on a plane and sent them to a violent prison in El Salvador, where thousands of men are housed in cramped cells and are never allowed outdoors. It’s unclear if any of the men on the plane were actually members of the gang, with one lawyer for one of the deported immigrants saying that his client had been wrongfully labeled a gang member because of misinterpreted tattoos, The New York Times reported

Trump sent the immigrants to El Salvador despite a judge ordering him to turn the planes around and return the immigrants to the United States, a blatant violation of the separation of powers. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the administration did not follow the order because "[a] single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil." 

Even more disturbing is that the Trump administration then posted a propaganda video to his Truth Social profile. The video depicts the deportations, with masked jail officials mistreating the Venezuelans whom Trump sent to El Salvador, possibly never to be seen again.

And on Sunday, Trump took his lawlessness to new heights when he ridiculously declared in a batshit-crazy Truth Social post that pardons former President Joe Biden issued to members of Congress on the now-defunct committee that probed the Capitol insurrection are "VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT."

Trump said Biden’s pardons of the members of Congress are void because he baselessly claimed that Biden did not know that the pardons were issued. He appears to have based this new conspiracy theory off an article in the right-wing New York Post, which said that a “key aide” to Biden determined which orders he would sign and which would be signed by autopen.

However, from the Post’s own report:

One Biden White House source told The Post they suspect that a key aide to the then-president may have made unilateral determinations on what to auto-sign. The Post is not publishing that staffer’s name due to the lack of concrete evidence and refutations by other colleagues.

Meanwhile, as the United States delved deeper into authoritarianism, Trump was more concerned with his favorite pastime: golf.

In a move taken straight from North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s playbook, Trump congratulated himself for winning a golf championship at one of his shitty golf properties in Florida, writing in a Truth Social post: "Such a great honor! The Awards dinner is tonight, at the Club. I want to thank the wonderful Golf Staff, and all of the many fantastic golfers, that participated in the even. Such fun!"

We are in seriously dark times.  

Thank you to the Daily Kos community who continues to fight so hard with Daily Kos. Your reader support means everything. We will continue to have you covered and keep you informed, so please donate just $3 to help support the work we do.

With new rules, the Texas GOP seeks to keep its elected officials in line

The state party plans to limit primaries to registered Republicans and keep elected officials it censured off the ballot. It’s unclear if it can without legislative approval.

By James Barragán, The Texas Tribune

Republican voters in Texas sent a strong message this primary season about their expectations for ideological purity, casting out 15 state House GOP incumbents who bucked the grassroots on issues like school vouchers or the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton.

At the same time this spring, the party itself has been making moves beyond the ballot box to keep its elected officials in line.

At its biennial convention last month, the Texas GOP tried to increase its party purity by approving two major rules changes: One would close the Republican primary elections so that only voters the party identifies as Republicans can participate. The other would bar candidates from the primary ballot for two years after they had been censured by the state party.

Jon Taylor, a political science professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio, said the moves are clear political shots by the increasingly dominant right wing of the party to root out dissenters and shape the party in its image.

“It says something about this battle, this civil war that’s broken out in the Republican Party of Texas that one side has gotten so concerned that they haven't been able to solidify their control of the party that they want to close their primary,” he said.

But the ideas have drawn pushback from inside and outside the party, with many questioning whether the GOP has the power to enact them without action from the state Legislature.

James Wesolek, a spokesperson for the Republican Party of Texas, said the party will be pursuing the policies regardless. He added that “an overwhelming majority” of Republican voters supported the ideas when they were included as propositions in the GOP primary this year.

“We hope the legislature takes action, but we will move forward as our rules dictate,” Wesolek said in an email last week.

Questions remain about how that would work.

Eric Opiela, a longtime Republican who previously served as the state party’s executive director and was part of the rules committee at this year’s convention, said moving forward on closing the primary without legislative action would lead to legal challenges.

Because party primaries are publicly financed and perform the public service of selecting candidates for elected office, they must adhere to the state’s election law, said Opiela, who has also served as a lawyer for the state party.

Currently, any voter can participate in a Democrat or Republican primary without having to register an affiliation. Without a change to state law, the Texas GOP could open itself to liability if it barred voters from participating in its primary elections, Opiela said.

Under the rules approved by the GOP, a voter would be eligible to cast a ballot in a primary if they voted in a GOP primary in the past two years or submitted a “certificate of affiliation with the Republican Party of Texas” prior to the candidate filing period for that election. They also could register with the state party, though the party hasn’t yet unveiled a process to do so.

A voter under 21 could also vote in the primary if it were their first primary election.

But critics are concerned that the party is underestimating the amount of work required to vet a person’s voting history. And Opiela also said that there are concerns about how to provide proper notification to new voters, especially military voters, who might have recently moved into the state and are not covered under the proposal as written. He said such concerns are why these changes should be left to the Legislature, where lawmakers can consider obstacles to implementation and come up with solutions.

“I don’t know that the process was given much thought,” said Opiela. “Those of us who have run an election know that this isn’t easy to pull off.”

Texas is among 15 states that currently have open primaries, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Ten states currently have closed primaries.

Closed primaries are a particularly hot topic in the GOP due to frustration among some in the conservative grassroots over House Speaker Dade Phelan’s primary runoff victory.

Phelan oversaw the passage of major conservative victories including restricting abortion and loosening gun laws in recent years. But he has become a target of the hard right for failing to pass school voucher legislation, appointing some Democrats to chair legislative committees and presiding over the impeachment of Paxton, who is a darling of the hard right.

He finished second in his March primary, but won his primary runoff against right wing candidate David Covey by fewer than 400 votes. Covey and his supporters blamed Phelan’s victory on Democratic voters who crossed over into the GOP primary runoff to vote for Phelan.

It’s difficult to say whether that’s true; Texas doesn’t track party registration. About 4% of the people who voted in the GOP primary this year had most recently voted in the Democratic primary, according to data compiled by elections data expert Derek Ryan, a Republican. But party leaders, such as recently departed party Chair Matt Rinaldi, have pointed to the Phelan race as a reason for a need for change.

“The time is now for Republicans to choose our own nominees without Democrat interference,” Rinaldi said in May.

Taylor, the UTSA professor, said the push to close the primaries was in line with the right wing’s push to force GOP candidates to follow the party line.

“You’re engaging in a form of ideological conformity, you’re demanding 100% fealty to the party,” he said.

But Daron Shaw, a political science professor at the University of Texas, pushed back against those crying foul.

“It is completely unclear to me how it is the ‘right’ of a voter in Texas, particularly one that does not identify as a Republican, to vote in the selection of Republican candidates,” he said. “Ultimately, a party is a private association and if it chooses to select extreme candidates, then presumably the general electorate will react accordingly.”

The rule to bar candidates who had been censured by the state party has also been met with skepticism.

Opiela said that if a candidate turned in an application that otherwise met the requirements for running for office, a court would likely order the party to allow the candidate on the ballot. He also said the provision could open up precinct and county chairs to criminal liability for rejecting applications that met the requirements.

The state party rule tries to cover for that potential liability by stating it would provide legal representation for any party official who is sued for complying with the rule.

Asked by The Texas Tribune to assess the legality of the idea, Rick Hasen, a UCLA professor and election law expert, called it “dicey.”

Taylor, from UTSA, said the move was also a pretty transparent message to elected officials like Phelan and U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales to fall in line. Phelan was censured in February for overseeing Paxton’s impeachment and appointing Democrats as committee chairs. Gonzales was censured for supporting a bipartisan gun law in the wake of the 2022 Uvalde shooting, which occurred in his district, and his vote for a bill that codified protections for same-sex marriage.

The censure rule in particular has been denounced as undemocratic, an increasingly common criticism from the GOP’s loudest critics. At the same party convention, the state party changed its platform to call for a new requirement that candidates for statewide office must also win a majority of votes in a majority of Texas’ 254 counties to win office, a model similar to that of the U.S. Electoral College.

That proposal, which represents the official position of the party but does not have any power of law, has been panned as unconstitutional.

“There’s a very good argument that such a system would violate the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court,” Hasen said.

Under the proposal, the 4.7 million residents of Harris County would have the same voting power as the 64 residents of Loving County.

“It’s basically a tyranny of the minority,” Taylor said. “This is designed to potentially go a step further in nullifying the concept of one person-one vote.”

The proposals come even as the GOP has dominated Texas politics for decades, and the hardline conservative movement continues to grow its influence. Brian W. Smith, a political science professor at St. Edward’s University in Austin, questioned the moves on a political level.

“Texas is already gerrymandered to elect ideologically pure candidates. We’re not seeing a lot of Republicans or Democrats moving to the middle to attract a broad swath of voters,” he said. “The Dade Phelans of the world are not winning because of independents or Democrats, they’re winning because they’re more popular among Republicans than their opponents.”

Campaign Action

Tracking URL: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/10/texas-republican-closed-primaries-rule-changes/

Watch: Republicans slammed for ‘debasing and demeaning’ the Constitution

On Tuesday, the House Homeland Security Committee met to discuss the Republican-created articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The entire enterprise against Mayorkas has been an example of one of the most transparent weaponizations of impeachment provisions in our lifetime. 

Rep. Daniel Goldman decided to use his time to give a masterclass on how hypocritical, political, and ultimately dangerous this endeavor is, describing the proceedings as “completely debasing and demeaning the impeachment clause of the United States Constitution, and it is a gross, gross injustice to the credibility of this institution.” Goldman reminded the committee that impeachment has only been used against people who have abused their power and should not be used as a way to attack what you might believe to be “bad” policy. “That is for elections and that is for legislation,” Goldman continued.

He then drilled into the political nature of these proceedings, and how they are an attempt to give Donald Trump and congressional Republicans something to run on during this election cycle: “You are sitting here right now trying to impeach a secretary of Homeland Security for neglecting his duties literally while he is trying to perform his duties and negotiate legislation.” Finally, Goldman detailed the catch-22 of nongovernance being performed by the GOP, and how corrosive it is to our country.

So your own party is sabotaging and undermining this administration's efforts to address the border while you are trying to impeach him by saying that they're not addressing the border. The hypocrisy is the least of it. Your attack on the rule of law and our democracy is the worst of it. And you better be careful about the bed that you make. I yield back.

Mayorkas has been a publicly convenient symbol for Republican attacks on immigration policy. No matter how jaw-droppingly obvious the fallacy of their attacks may seem, it is all that they’ve got. Since the GOP continues to fail to gin up enthusiastic electoral support from its voters by way of culture wars attacking trans children and banning books on race and history, trying to impeach Mayorkas has become their substitute for doing anything substantial about our country’s immigration policies.

Campaign Action

Republicans continue to fail the democracy test: Do they support Trump or the U.S. Constitution?

After three consecutive dismal election cycles, Republicans still can't bring themselves to break with perennial loser Donald Trump even after his rallying cry to terminate the U.S. Constitution.

On Tuesday, the House GOP's No. 2, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, became the latest Republican to fail the democracy test: Trump or the Constitution?

Pressed by PBS Newshour reporter Lisa Desjardins on Trump's latest call to suspend "all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," Scalise simply couldn't bring himself to condemn Trump.

"Rep. @SteveScalise told me a few minutes ago that he has not seen former Pres. Trump's words about the Constitution," tweeted Desjardins, in regard to Trump's Truth Social rant.

Desjardins proceeded to educate Scalise: "As he sees the election, from 2020, it allows for the termination of all rules and articles, including the Constitution. What do you make of that?"

Campaign Action

Steering clear of Trump, Scalise responded, "The Constitution is never subject to being waived or suspended. Obviously, the Constitution's our enduring document that protects our freedoms."  

Desjardins followed up by asking Scalise if it's "dangerous to talk about the termination of things like that?" In other words, is it dangerous to suspend the very document that "protects our freedoms," as Scalise himself put it.

The response, according to Desjardins' tweet thread: "Scalise: *enters office, does not respond*"

So if it's Trump or the Constitution, it's still Trump for Republicans, which is the exact same message Rep. David Joyce of Ohio, who chairs the Republican Governance Group, sent Sunday on ABC's This Week.

Host George Stephanopoulos asked Joyce directly, "Can you support a candidate in 2024 who's for suspending the Constitution?"

Joyce equivocated at first, offering, "It's early, I think there's going to be a lot people in the primary."

But he ultimately admitted that he would back Trump if he won the nomination. "At the end of the day, whoever the Republicans end up picking, I think I'll fall behind."

"Even if it's Donald Trump and he's called for suspending the Constitution?" Stephanopoulos interjected.

Joyce retreated to his earlier contention that it would be a "big field" in 2024, suggesting that Trump might not win.

"That's not what I'm asking," Stephanopoulos clarified, "I'm asking you, if he's the nominee, will you support him?"

"I will support whoever the Republican nominee is," Joyce restated, adding another dash of fairy dust, "I just don't think at this point he will be able to get there."

Stephanopoulos proceeded to call Joyce's statement both "extraordinary" and "remarkable."

But the truth is, it isn't remarkable in the least from today's Republican Party—it's just more of the same from a party that has routinely capitulated to Donald Trump no matter what the circumstance. Even after Trump inspired the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. seat of government, 197 House Republicans—93% of the caucus—voted against impeaching him.

The entire Jan. 6 attack was an assault on the Constitution, the peaceful transfer of power, and the will of the people.

The brother of fallen Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick put it best on Tuesday when he explained why the Sicknick family refused to shake the hands of GOP leaders Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell at a congressional gold medal ceremony for officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6.

"Unlike Liz Cheney, they have no idea what integrity is," Ken Sicknick said. "They can't stand up for what's right and wrong—with them, it's party first."

On Tuesday, McConnell had yet another opportunity to defend U.S. democracy when CNN’s Manu Raju asked if he would “categorically” refuse to support Trump. 

"What I’m saying is, it would be pretty hard to be sworn in to the presidency if you’re not willing to uphold the Constitution,” McConnell offered. 

Again, given the choice of Trump or the Constitution, McConnell demurs.

Republicans have proven over and over again their fealty to party, and personal gain supersedes their fealty to the republic. Their continued refusal to condemn a man who is calling for the "termination" of the U.S. Constitution is just a continuation of their treachery.

FLASH: Family of officer Brian Sicknick refuses to shake hands with Sen McConnell and Rep McCarthy at Congressional gold medal ceremony. Brian’s brother Ken Sicknick tells me why ====> pic.twitter.com/Y34CI8MCTi

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) December 6, 2022

Asked McConnell - in aftermath of his criticism of Trump in the past two weeks - if he could categorically say he wouldn't support him as GOP nominee. "What I’m saying is it would be pretty hard to be sworn in to the presidency if you’re not willing to uphold the Constitution" pic.twitter.com/FUdv4zIpvT

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) December 6, 2022

This is the state of the authoritarian Republican Party: willing to back an aspiring despot who *explicitly* says he wants to terminate the US Constitution, so long as he’s got an (R) by his name. We’re in trouble. pic.twitter.com/0AGd6nK0o6

— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) December 4, 2022

Democrat Introduces Bill To Prevent Trump From Becoming Speaker Of The House

Representative Brendan Boyle (D-PA) introduced a bill that would only allow sitting House members to serve as Speaker after Donald Trump said the post would be “interesting.”

Boyle, having seemingly resolved all other matters of concern for his constituents, moved on to legislation specifically targeting the former President.

Though the role has never been filled by anyone outside the chamber, the Constitution does not specifically state that the Speaker must be a House member. Anyone chosen by the House can serve as Speaker.

And while Trump being chosen for the role would be an extreme long shot, Boyle is so fearful of the prospect he doesn’t want to take the chance.

“The Speaker of the U.S. House is second in the United States presidential line of succession,” he said in a statement.

“That Donald Trump’s name would even be tossed around as a potential speaker in the people’s house, should serve as an alarm bell that our current requirements need to be amended in the name of protecting our nation and our democracy,” Boyle continued.

RELATED: Trump Calls Mitch McConnell ‘A Stupid Person’ For… Not Getting Rid Of The Filibuster?

Trump As Speaker Of The House?

Last month, in an interview with conservative radio host Wayne Allen Root, former President Donald Trump toyed with the idea of running for Congress in 2022 and perhaps becoming Speaker of the House.

Root, for his part, was completely enamored with the idea, suggesting Trump run for a House seat in Florida, lead the Republican Party to a massive victory in the chamber in 2022, and “become the Speaker of the House.”

The radio host went so far as to suggest Trump could then give Biden and the Democrats a taste of their own medicine if he were to “lead the impeachment of (President) Biden and start criminal investigations against” him.

Trump, always one to leave all possibilities on the table to keep his political adversaries off guard, said the idea was “so interesting.”

Root egged him on a bit, saying the move would make him a “folk hero.”

“Yeah, you know it’s very interesting,” Trump replied, noting some people have suggested he run for Senate. “But you know what, your idea might be better. It’s very interesting.”

RELATED: 6th Texas Democrat Tests Positive For COVID, Along With White Official And Pelosi Staffer After Maskless Flight To Avoid Work

Obsessed With Trump

Root wasn’t the only one to suggest Trump make a move to become Speaker of the House.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon first touted the idea of Trump running for Congress to take over as Speaker back in February.

As with Root, Bannon suggested the former President could lead impeachment proceedings against Biden.

Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) a staunch ally of Trump, has also suggested he be elected to the role of House Speaker.

Gaetz sent out fundraising appeals which told donors, ”how great it will feel when … we make our next Speaker of the House Donald J. Trump.” 

POLL: Do you think Trump for run for Congress in 2022 and become House Speaker?

By voting, you agree to receive email communication from The Political Insider. Click HERE for more information.

Boyle believes his legislation would prevent that from happening.

“This legislation would establish that mandate in very clear and direct language, and it would serve as a check against those who would seek to undermine and derogate the authority and responsibilities of the speaker’s office,” he said.

We’re not quite sure Boyle thought it through very well, however.

The entire premise of Root’s and Bannon’s argument is that Trump runs for a House seat and then becomes Speaker of the House. Neither of their suggestions involves House members choosing an outsider to serve as Speaker.

Boyle’s obsession with stopping Trump even after he has left office is perhaps matched only by Democrats earlier this year who introduced a bill that would ban the former President from being buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

That bill has 13 Democrat co-sponsors.

Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) at the time said the bill is proof that “Trump lives rent-free in the heads of Democrats.”

“If it weren’t so tragic, it would be hilarious,” he added.

Boyle’s obsession continues that tragic legacy.

 

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.”

 

The post Democrat Introduces Bill To Prevent Trump From Becoming Speaker Of The House appeared first on The Political Insider.

GOP Rep Says Impeachment Was Really About Dems Trying To Frame 74 Million Trump Voters As Capitol Rioters

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) spoke out over the weekend to say that the last impeachment effort against former President Donald Trump was really about Democrats trying to “equate” the 74 million Americans who voted for him with “the couple hundred criminals who came in an ransacked the Capitol.”

Johnson Reveals What Impeachment Was Really About

Johnson explained that he feels that the “ultimate goal” for Democrats with this impeachment was to frame Trump’s supporters as indistinguishable from Capitol rioters.

“They really wanted to use impeachment as a vehicle because they wanted to equate all those tens of millions of Trump’s voters and all of his supporters and everybody who came to the rally, they wanted to equate all of those people with the couple hundred criminals who came in and ransacked the Capitol,” Johnson told Breitbart News.

“If [Democrats’] new impeachment standard is to take hold, most of the party leadership in the Democrats will have to be censured or impeached themselves,” he added. “I thought Trump’s attorneys did such a great job with their video montage where they showed all these guys — even the impeachment managers themselves — using the exact same language that they were trying to incriminate the president by using.”

“[Trump] has always stood for law and order and defense of the Constitution,” Johnson said emphatically. “He’s always opposed mob violence.”

Related: Lindsey Graham Says Mitch McConnell’s Anti-Trump Speech May Come Back To Bite Republicans

Johnson Doubles Down

Later in the interview, Johnson predicted that congressional majorities will be using impeachment as political tools more often in the future.

“You are lowering the bar [for impeachment] now. You weaponized this,” he said. “You turned it into a political weapon to be used by the majority party against a president they don’t like. You opened a Pandora’s box that we may never be able to close again.”

Johnson added that he does not believe that the impeachment effort that Democrats just carried out was what the founding fathers had in mind when they framed the Constitution.

“What the Founders had in mind when they set up this impeachment article and the idea behind it was that it would be so serious that the decorum would be so appropriate for the weight of a moment like that,” Johnson explained.

Related: ‘Never-Trump’ Republicans Looking To Form Their Own Party

“It was sort of presupposed,” he added. “It was understood, of course, that you would afford due process. They didn’t need to spell out the federal rules of the civil procedure in the Constitution for something like this because they thought that everyone would be acting like adults.”

“This was not a constitutional exercise,” Johnson concluded. “What [Democrats] tried to do [is] to raise ‘cancel culture’ now to a constitutional level.”

This piece was written by James Samson on February 15, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Van Der Veen Owns Impeachment Trial Fourth Day
Former First Lady Melania Trump Announces That She’s Opened New Office At Mar-a-Lago
WH Deputy Press Secretary TJ Ducklo Suspended For Reportedly Threatening, Demeaning Female Reporter

The post GOP Rep Says Impeachment Was Really About Dems Trying To Frame 74 Million Trump Voters As Capitol Rioters appeared first on The Political Insider.