Category: John Roberts

Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Texas, Louisiana In Deportation Lawsuit

Posted on by The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to Texas and Louisiana Friday in a lawsuit over a Biden administration policy that’s helped effectively end most deportations of foreign nationals in the U.S. illegally.

Rather than rule on the merits of the case, in United States v. Texas, the court ruled 8-1 that the states didn’t have standing, or a legal right, to challenge the policy.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the sole dissent, arguing the justices ignored “a major precedent.”

He wrote:

“The Court holds Texas lacks standing to challenge a federal policy that inflicts substantial harm on the State and its residents by releasing illegal aliens with criminal convictions for serious crimes.

In order to reach this conclusion, the Court brushes aside a major precedent that directly controls the standing question, refuses to apply our established test for standing, disregards factual findings made by the District Court after a trial, and holds that the only limit on the power of a President to disobey a law like the important provision at issue is Congress’s power to employ the weapons of inter-branch warfare – withholding funds, impeachment and removal, etc. I would not blaze this unfortunate trail. I would simply apply settled law, which leads ineluctably to the conclusion that Texas has standing.”

Last June, a federal judge in Texas, U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, ruled in favor of Texas and Louisiana, arguing they would incur costs due to the federal government’s failure to comply with federal immigration law and deportation policies. The judge ruled the states had standing to sue because of these costs. He also vacated the deportation policy, arguing it was unlawful.

The Biden administration appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which again handed a victory to the states by declining to stay the lower court’s ruling. The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted cert. Last fall, the court heard oral arguments and on Friday ruled the states lacked Article III standing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a different opinion saying the states didn’t have standing for a different reason than the one Kavanaugh gave. He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett also wrote her own concurring opinion and was joined by Gorsuch.

Related: Feds Catch More Than 460 Known, Suspected Terrorists In Nine Months, Most At Northern Border

At issue is a final memorandum, “Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law,” issued by Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, drastically altering deportation policies, including limiting issuing detainer requests for dangerous criminal aliens.

In Mayorkas’ final September 2021 memorandum, he also challenged federal law established by Congress that illegal entry is a crime in itself and a deportable offense. The policy states: “The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country’s well-being require it.”

Many news organizations reported the Supreme Court ruling would allow the administration to prioritize deporting violent criminals. But under the current administration, deportations immediately dropped by two-thirds in the first fiscal year of the administration, according to CBP data. In fiscal 2021, deportations also dropped to the lowest level since fiscal 1996 despite record-high illegal entries.

Mayorkas’ policy also followed President Joe Biden’s directive, who after taking office ordered a “pause” on deportations.

Related: Illegal Border Crossers So Far This Year Outnumber The Population Of 8 States

Last July, 19 attorneys general filed an amicus brief expressing support for Texas’ and Louisiana’s lawsuit, arguing Mayorkas violated federal law and DHS’s actions negatively impacted their states and jeopardized the safety and welfare of Americans.

The AGs argued, and still maintain, “The Amici States and their citizens continue to suffer significant costs from illegal immigration – including billions of dollars in new expenses relating to law enforcement, education, and healthcare programs – as a direct result of Defendants’ failures to enforce immigration law. Those harms are exacerbated by DHS’ increasingly brazen disrespect for the requirements of our nation’s immigration laws and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“The border is in crisis,” they argued. “This DHS Administration is lawless. And the States continue to suffer escalating irreparable harm as the border crisis continually intensifies to successive, ever-more unprecedented levels of illegal crossings.”

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Texas, Louisiana In Deportation Lawsuit appeared first on The Political Insider.

GOP senators want Roberts to take action on Supreme Court

Posted on (Updated by Alexander Bolton

Republican senators are leaning on Chief Justice John Roberts to do something about the Supreme Court's appearance problem in the wake of reports that conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepted luxury vacations from conservative donors.  

While Republicans don’t support Supreme Court ethics reform legislation sponsored by Democrats, they think the reports that Thomas and Alito accepted expensive vacations funded by wealthy donors has created a real public relations problem for the court. 

These lawmakers want Roberts to take the issue of legislation out of Congress’s hands by issuing a judicial code of ethics or some other updated statement of principles for he and his fellow justices.  

“I think it would be helpful for the court to up its game. I don’t want Congress to start micromanaging the court but I think confidence-building would be had if they were more clear on some of this stuff,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

ProPublica this week reported that Alito flew on a private plane owned by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer to a luxury fishing lodge in Alaska in 2008.  

Alito later decided not to recuse himself from a 2014 case that pitted the Republic of Argentina against American creditors, including Singer. Singer’s hedge fund ultimately gained a $2.4 billion payout after the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in its favor. 

Alito explained in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that he did not include the private flight to the King Salmon fishing lodge on his financial disclosure reports because he viewed it as personal hospitality exempt from disclosure requirements. 

Graham had previously called on Roberts to address criticism of the Supreme Court’s ethics policies after ProPublica reported earlier this year that Thomas had accepted luxury trips and other perks from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow over the course of two decades — none of which Thomas had included in financial disclosures.

ProPublica reported that Crow paid the tuition for Thomas’s grand-nephew at a private boarding school and that one of Crow’s companies bought a house in which Thomas had a one-third financial interest.  

Graham told The Hill in April that the court should adopt new ethical guidelines.

“A lot of us are really leery of micromanaging the other branch, but I think that’s where the court is headed. At least that’s where I hope they are,” he said at the time. 

“The reason we have these [ethics] rules on our side [of government] is to make sure people feel confident, and I think that’s where the court is headed.”   

It’s unclear if Roberts could get his fellow justices to agree on any new course of action. But it’s clearly becoming a growing concern for some Republicans.

“I think that the nine justices need to get on the same page,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a member of the Judiciary Committee. “I believe the Article III branch should address concerns amongst themselves without congressional intervention. 

“I think it’s a process that the justices should go through and get consensus,” he added. “The chief justice can’t do it on his own.”  

Asked if he thinks the Supreme Court has a public perception problem, Tillis said, “I do.” 

“I think it’s time to show progress,” he said.  

Roberts told an audience at the American Law Institute on May 23 that he and his fellow justices are working to reassure the public that it adheres to “the highest standards of conduct.”  

“We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment. And I am confident that there are ways to do that consistent with our status as an independent branch of government and the Constitution’s separations of powers,” he said. 

Yet a month later, the court hasn’t made any new announcement about its ethical rules or procedures.  

Tillis thinks Roberts is having trouble getting all nine members of the high court to agree on how to address concerns about its conduct and adherence to ethical guidelines.

“If you had nine justices saying, 'We need to address this,' then they would be doing something. So logic tells me maybe there’s not consensus,” he said. “They need to sort it out. It’s their institution; they should preserve the integrity.”

Asked about Alito’s fishing trip, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), another Judiciary Committee member, said, "All of us need to be concerned about the public confidence in the courts, but this is not something that Congress has the authority over.” 

“This is something that the court itself needs to come to grips with. I hope that John Roberts will do that,” he said. “I understand they’re still working on a review of their ethics policy.” 

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), a key subcommittee chairman, announced Wednesday that they will mark up Supreme Court ethics legislation after the July 4 recess, but so far only one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), has sponsored a Supreme Court ethics reform bill.  

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) told reporters Wednesday that Congress needs to “stay out” of the court’s business.  

Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, a progressive advocacy group that favors Supreme Court reform, said the reports of Alito and Thomas accepting lavish gifts from wealthy donors has put GOP senators in a tough spot.  

“These Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they don’t want to have to cooperate with Democrats on ethics legislation, because it sort of accepts the premise that the Republican justices are behaving corruptly and there’s a need to rein them in,” he said.  

“The second thing is this constant drip, drip, drip of scandals emanating out of the court that is causing the courts to be highly salient politically with the public is making the Republicans’ resistance to ethics legislation look even worse,” Fallon added.  

“The Republican lawmakers are sort of being dragged down with the court, because by running interference for the court on any of these ethics bills, they are attaching themselves to them and they are putting themselves in the position of having to defend every new scandal that comes out about trips that were taken by Clarence Thomas or Sam Alito,” he added. “The obvious solution in their minds is: ‘Roberts, this hot potato belongs in your lap, if you would just self-administer some improved ethics guidelines, then it would take some of the oomph out of these stories.’" 

Carrie Campbell Severino, the president of JCN, a conservative advocacy group that favors “the Founders’ vision of a nation of limited government,” disputed the view that the Supreme Court has an image problem.  

“The only image problem after ProPublica’s recent reporting is ProPublica’s own image attempting to cast completely legal and ethical behavior as somehow wrong,” she said. “Their reporting was absolutely shoddy.”  

Severino said the notion that “Justice Alito’s fishing trip … would have triggered recusal obligations is absurd.”  

“It’s even more absurd that the cases they’re talking about were decided by overwhelming majorities,” she said. “The Argentina case was not even close.” 

ProPublica reported that Severino and JCN filed an amicus brief supporting Singer’s interest in the case, Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital. 

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said she agrees with GOP colleagues who want the court to address the growing criticism of its ethical standards.  

“I certainly believe it’s in the Supreme Court’s and John Roberts’s not only perusal but best interests to address this issue to the satisfaction of the public and use the standards that should apply to anyone in the executive or legislative branch with regard to ethics,” she said. 

While Supreme Court justices are subject to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which requires justices to file annual financial disclosure reports, they are not covered by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which covers all federal district and appellate courts. 

Roberts included a statement of principles in an April 25 letter to Durbin, noting that Supreme Court justices agreed in 1991 to “follow the substance” of the Judicial Conference Regulations but cautioned they “are broadly worded principles” and “not themselves rules.”  

The Judicial Conference revised its financial disclosure rules in March to specify that judges must disclose nonbusiness stays at resorts, the use of private jets and when gifts of hospitality are reimbursed by a third party.  

Murkowski has co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) that would require the Supreme Court to establish its own ethics code and appoint an official to review potential conflicts and public complaints.  

But so far, King, the lead sponsor, hasn’t found any other Republicans to sign on to the legislation. 

King told The Hill that he was somewhat surprised that the proposal didn’t muster more bipartisan support since it didn’t prescribe any specific ethical rules for the court. 

McConnell: Democrats should ‘stay out’ of Supreme Court’s business 

Posted on (Updated by Alexander Bolton

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) says Senate Democrats don’t have any jurisdiction over the Supreme Court’s ethics and should “stay out” of the court’s business, after ProPublica reported conservative Justice Samuel Alito accepted a luxury fishing vacation from wealthy benefactors. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the chairman of a key Judiciary subcommittee, said in response to the report that they will mark up Supreme Court ethics legislation. 

But McConnell sent a strong signal Wednesday that any Supreme Court ethics reform bill is not likely to get enough Republican support to overcome a filibuster. 

“Look, the Supreme Court, in my view, can’t be dictated to by Congress. I think the chief justice will address these issues. Congress should stay out of it, because we don’t, I think, have the jurisdiction to tell the Supreme Court how to handle the issue,” he said. 

McConnell said he has “full confidence” in Chief Justice John Roberts to address any ethical issues facing the court.  

“I have total confidence in Chief Justice John Roberts to in effect look out for the court as well as its reputation,” he said.  

The Senate GOP leader made his comments after ProPublica reported that Alito did not publicly disclose a 2008 trip he took to a luxury fishing lodge in Alaska, and that he flew there aboard a private plane owned by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer.  

Alito then did not recuse himself in 2014, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Singer’s hedge fund in a legal battle that resulted in the fund receiving a $2.4 billion payout.  

Alito explained in a Wall Street Journal op-ed responding to ProPublica’s reporting that he was not required to report the trip nor recuse himself from the court case.  

Senate Democrats warned Wednesday that they will take matters into their own hands if Roberts doesn’t announce new ethics guidelines for the high court soon. 

“The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards.  But for too long that has been the case with the United States Supreme Court.  That needs to change.  That’s why when the Senate returns after the July 4th recess, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up Supreme Court ethics legislation,” Durbin and Whitehouse said in a joint statement.  

“We hope that before that time, Chief Justice Roberts will take the lead and bring Supreme Court ethics in line with all other federal judges.  But if the Court won’t act, then Congress must,” they said.  

Whitehouse is the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights.  

Other Republicans joined McConnell in pushing back against Democratic calls to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation.  

“They’ve been after everybody from Clarence Thomas to anybody they can get their teeth into to try to undermine the credibility of the court. I think all of us need to be concerned about the public confidence in the courts, but this is not something that the Congress has any authority over. This is something the court itself needs to come to grips with,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  

Chief Justice John Roberts Tells Democrats to Get Lost After They Request He Testify on Supreme Court Ethics

Posted on by Rusty Weiss

Chief Justice John Roberts rejected an invitation from Senator Dick Durbin to testify before Congress on ethics rules for the Supreme Court.

Roberts sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman implying that such testimony would threaten the basic government concept of separation of powers.

“I must respectfully decline your invitation,” he wrote.

“Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence,” Roberts explained.

Accompanying his letter declining Durbin’s invite was a copy of the court’s Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices.

Roberts stated “all of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe” to that ethics statement.

RELATED: Clarence Thomas, Consistent Target Of The Left, Explains ‘Right Is Still Right Even If You Stand By Yourself’

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Declines to Participate in Dick Durbin’s Sideshow

Dick Durbin’s invitation to Chief Justice John Roberts was little more than a thinly-veiled effort to address allegations against Justice Clarence Thomas.

Another one of those ‘high-tech lynchings’ the left likes to engage in every now and again regarding the longest-tenured black justice serving on the court.

A report this month by the left-leaning outlet Pro Publica alleged billionaire Harlan Crow, a GOP donor,  provided trips and gifts to Thomas that were not disclosed.

Following that report, other liberal media outlets have tried to make specious links between Thomas and other gifts from friends that they suddenly find scandalous.

Thomas, following allegations of impropriety, explained slowly and carefully to those wondering, that the gifts in question were from close personal friends and, as they “did not have business before the Court” it “was not reportable.”

He said he would amend his financial disclosure forms to comply with changes made to disclosure rules that were announced last month.

RELATED: Liberal Group Publishes Home Addresses Of Supreme Court Justices, Calls For Protests

Roberts Often Sides With the Left

It’s good to see Roberts stand up to Durbin, a rare morphing from a spineless jellyfish patsy for the Democrats to somebody finally showing a modicum of intestinal fortitude.

Think about it – Roberts has spent the vast majority of his time as Chief Justice abandoning his principles and voting intentionally with the liberal wing of the Court as a means to convey an image of fairness.

His lone goal is to create a legacy of a court not swayed by politics, but rather, guided by the law. And he’s been more than eager to side with the left to create that faux ethical image.

And Durbin has the gall to question the ethics of his court?

In June of 2020, Roberts cast the deciding vote, joining the court’s liberal justices in a 5-4 decision that ruled against the Trump administration’s bid to end the DACA program, despite it having been implemented illegally.

That same year he sided with the liberal court justices, ruling in favor of coronavirus restrictions on religious services in the state of California.

He ruled alongside liberals yet again in a ruling that struck down a Louisiana abortion safety law.

There are so many other cases in which Roberts abandoned the rule of law to cast his lot with the left just to seem impartial.

How bad must Durbin’s circus request be that even he would stand up and say, ‘No, this is a bit too much.’

Roberts though, does have a bit of a history of being irked by Democrats for daring to question the legitimacy of his Supreme Court.

He became visibly agitated after having to read a question from Senator Elizabeth Warren which suggested the legitimacy of the Court, the Constitution, and his own career would be tainted following the impeachment trial of then-President Donald Trump.

Fox News reported at the time that upon finishing the question, Roberts became “visibly irritated” and “pursed his lips and shot a chagrined look.”

We imagine he had the same look while writing the letter to Durbin.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Chief Justice John Roberts Tells Democrats to Get Lost After They Request He Testify on Supreme Court Ethics appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump Lawyer’s Demand Senate Impeachment Trial Be Dismissed, As Top Democrat Admits It’s Not Crazy To Argue It Is Unconstitutional

Posted on by Rusty Weiss

On the eve of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, lawyers for the former President are demanding a dismissal, while a top Democrat admits the process could reasonably be argued as unconstitutional.

A memorandum filed by Trump’s legal team Monday calls for an “immediate dismissal” of what they define as Democrat “political theater.”

“The Article of Impeachment presented by the House is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, any of which alone would be grounds for immediate dismissal,” they write.

“Taken together, they demonstrate conclusively that indulging House Democrats’ hunger for this political theater is a danger to our Republic[an] democracy and the rights that we hold dear.”

RELATED: CNN’s Jake Tapper Called Out For Claiming Republicans Must Stop ‘Insane Lies’ That Have Led To ‘MAGA Terrorism’

The Impeachment of a Former President IS Unconstitutional

Meanwhile, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), during an interview with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, admitted it is not “ridiculous” for his GOP colleagues to argue the impeachment is unconstitutional.

“I will admit that this is, of course, a matter of first impression. And so I don’t think the case that Senator Paul is making here is a ridiculous one,” Murphy said.

Senator Rand Paul forced a procedure two weeks ago that prompted 45 Republicans to vote that the impeachment trial is unconstitutional.

In an op-ed column, Paul (R-KY) also referred to the impeachment process against the former President as a “farce” and said it should be dismissed.

“The Constitution says two things about impeachment — it is a tool to remove the officeholder, and it must be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court,” he wrote.

Neither of those criteria has been met by the House impeachment effort.

RELATED: Dead On Arrival: 45 Republicans – Including McConnell – Vote That Trump’s Impeachment Trial Is Unconstitutional

Murphy Disagrees

While he does argue that Republicans could make a viable case, Senator Murphy disagrees that the impeachment is unconstitutional.

“I come to a different judgment … I think we have this responsibility,” he countered. “But I – listen, I admit that Senator Paul’s case is, you know, not from outer space.”

Paul, however, claims even Supreme Court Justice John Roberts recognized the impeachment trial as being troublesome.

“Justice Roberts said heck no, I’m not coming across the street because you’re not impeaching the president,” Paul said.

“This was a strong signal to all of us that this was going to be a partisan hearing with a Democrat in the chair, who’s already voted for impeachment.”

Paul went on to echo the sentiments of Trump’s lawyers regarding the impeachment trial, calling it a “partisan farce.”

The post Trump Lawyer’s Demand Senate Impeachment Trial Be Dismissed, As Top Democrat Admits It’s Not Crazy To Argue It Is Unconstitutional appeared first on The Political Insider.

Rand Paul Roasts Hypocrisy Of Impeaching Trump, Doing Nothing About Chuck Schumer, Waters, And Omar

Posted on by John Hanson

On Sunday, Republican Sen. Rand Paul said that if Democrats insist on claiming that former President Donald Trump’s rally speech incited the January 6th Capitol Hill attack as a basis for impeachment, then Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer along with Democratic Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Ilhan Omar should be held accountable for similar language.

Paul made his comments on “Fox News Sunday.”

Watch his entire interview below.

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Predicts Democrats Will Throw Away Congress ‘Once Again’ With ‘Radical’ Budget Agenda

Sen. Paul: Democrats Have Used Violent Language With No Consequences

The GOP senator referenced Schumer’s rhetoric before a protest at the U.S. Supreme Court in early March 2020.

“I opposed the notion of — which I think was a misguided notion, a voting to overturn the election either with Congress or with the vice president,” Paul told Fox News Chris Wallace.

Paul continued, “But I think if we are going to criminalize speech and somehow impeach everybody who says, oh, ‘go fight to hear your voices heard,’ really we ought to impeach Chuck Schumer then.”

“He went to the Supreme Court, stood in front of the Supreme Court, and said specifically, ‘hey Gorsuch, hey Kavanaugh, you’ve unleashed a whirlwind, and you’re going to pay the price,'” Paul reminded viewers.

“You won’t know what hit you if you continue with these awful decisions,” Paul recalled Schumer saying.

Sen. Paul wanted to know why this speech did not qualify for potentially inciting violence.

“This inflammatory wording, this violent rhetoric of Chuck Schumer was so bad that the chief justice, who rarely says anything publicly, immediately said this kind of language is dangerous as a mob tried to invade the Supreme Court,” Paul continued.

Paul added, “So if people want to hold President Trump accountable for language, there has to be a consistent standard, and to my mind, it’s a partisan farce because they’re not doing anything to Chuck Schumer, not doing anything to Representative Omar, not doing anything to Maxine Waters.”

“It’s just not fair,” Paul finished. “It’s just partisan politics under a different name.”

Chief Justice Roberts Chastised Schumer’s Violent Rhetoric

The senator has a point, and Schumer was even accused of trying to incite physical violence at the time he made his controversial remarks.

As the Supreme Court was weighing a case about abortion, Schumer said at a rally in March 2020, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.”

“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer said.

Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rebuked Schumer, saying: 

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.

All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

Some Senate Republicans called on Schumer to apologize or face possible censure.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Barrasso said, “To me, this sounds like he is talking about a physical price, violence.’

Waters Encouraged Physical Intimidation Against Trump Administration

Rep. Maxine Waters appeared to encourage physical violence and intimidation against members of the Trump administration at a political rally in June 2018.

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up,” Waters told a crowd. “And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.”

“And you push back on them,” Waters added. “And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

RELATED: Trump Voices Support For Lou Dobbs After Fox Cancels His Show – ‘Nobody Loves America More’

Omar appeared to endorse further violence when she retweeted Hollywood actor Tom Arnold’s comments about an incident in which Rand Paul’s neighbor severely injured him in an attack in 2017.

Paul told Fox News Sunday that Omar was “wishing and celebrating the violence that happened to me when I had six ribs broken and part of my lung removed.”

Watch Rand Paul’s comments below:

The post Rand Paul Roasts Hypocrisy Of Impeaching Trump, Doing Nothing About Chuck Schumer, Waters, And Omar appeared first on The Political Insider.

Bolton makes his move: Memoir to claim Trump misconduct went beyond Ukraine, slam ‘reelection calculations’

Posted on by Brooke Singman
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s forthcoming memoir claims President Trump’s "transgressions" went well beyond the Ukraine saga that led to his impeachment and alleges that “reelection calculations” drove the president's major decisions, according to a press release for the book.