AOC vows to file articles of impeachment against conservative Supreme Court justices
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vowed Monday to remove the conservative justices from the U.S. Supreme Court.
AOC threatens Supreme Court articles of impeachment over immunity ruling
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., threatened to bring articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court after Monday's immunity ruling regarding former President Trump.
"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X. "Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."
The ruling in question said a president has absolute immunity from prosecution for "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," and "presumptive immunity" for official acts in general. The court said there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS BLAST RULING ON TRUMP IMMUNITY: 'EXTREME RIGHT-WING SUPREME COURT'
Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's congressional office seeking clarification on who in particular she intends to impeach, but did not immediately hear back.
Ocasio-Cortez was not the only congressional Democrat to blast the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., vowed that "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."
NY DEM SLAMS 'SQUAD' MEMBER'S PROFANITY-LACED RANT AT RALLY WITH AOC: 'UNHINGED'
"Today’s Supreme Court decision to grant legal immunity to a former President for crimes committed using his official power sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation," Jeffries said.
"This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote on X. "The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president."
The court's ruling did not say whether any of Trump's alleged actions fell under his constitutional powers, leaving such matters to be sorted out by a lower court.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
House Republicans sue Garland, seeking Biden audio
House Republicans want audio recordings of President Biden's interview with special counsel Robert Hur as part of their impeachment inquiry.
Congressional Dems blast ruling on Trump immunity: ‘Extreme right-wing Supreme Court’
Democratic lawmakers lamented the conservative majority Supreme Court's decision on Monday, granting presidents limited immunity for actions in their official capacity.
"This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote on X. "The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law."
"Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president," he continued.
SCOTUS RULES EX-PRESIDENTS HAVE PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION FOR OFFICIAL ACTS IN IMMUNITY CASE
The court ruled on Monday that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution when it comes to official acts while they are in office, but this does not extend to unofficial acts. The ruling was decided 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion.
"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," he wrote.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said she would introduce articles of impeachment over the decision, though she did not specify which justices she would target.
"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return," Ocasio-Cortez said on X.
Minutes later, fellow progressive Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, responded, "Count me in."
Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., claimed in a statement, "This Court has lost all credibility—made painfully clear by the fact that Justice Thomas and Justice Alito refused to recuse themselves from this case despite their glaring lack of impartiality."
BALANCE OF POWER: DEM REP SAYS PEOPLE WILL 'WANT TO TALK ABOUT' BIDEN STATUS ON TICKET AFTER DEBATE
The Vermont lawmaker has been an advocate of ethical reform for the nation's highest court.
The ruling sets a "dangerous precedent," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution," he added.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called the ruling "shocking."
"The extreme right-wing Supreme Court just drastically weakened accountability if a president attempts to use their office for criminal purposes. It’s a disastrous ruling that could have grave effects on our democracy," she claimed.
VULNERABLE DEMS WON'T SAY WHETHER BIDEN SHOULD BE NOMINEE: 'PRESIDENT CAN MAKE HIS OWN DECISIONS'
Another strong advocate for ethics reform, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., wrote on X, "My stomach turns with fear & anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control Court."
"The members of Court’s conservative majority will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme & nakedly partisan hacks—politicians in robes," he said.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claimed the Supreme Court had gone "rogue" in its decision-making. "The former president’s claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King," she said in a statement.
Democrats in Congress were quick to point out that three of the justices were appointed by former President Trump. According to Schumer, the decision on immunity, handed down by the court's conservatives, "suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today."
TOP 5 MOMENTS DURING TRUMP-BIDEN DEBATE SHOWDOWN: 'I DIDN'T HAVE SEX WITH A PORN STAR'
"He appointed 3 extreme judges and is now exploiting the powers of the president in ways that were once unthinkable. The court can no longer be counted on to defend the constitution," said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif.
Vulnerable Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin avoided opining on the ruling itself, but bashed the Supreme Court in general on X. "Reminder: Republicans and this activist Supreme Court are responsible for stripping away women’s reproductive rights and they aren’t done attacking our freedoms. My Women’s Health Protection Act would restore these rights everywhere across the country. Let’s pass it," she wrote.
House Judiciary sues Garland for Biden audio that Hur says shows him as ‘elderly man with a poor memory’
The House Judiciary Committee is suing Attorney General Merrick Garland to obtain recordings of President Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.
The committee, as part of the lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stressed the importance of the "verbal and nonverbal context" of Biden's answers that could be provided by the audio recordings – especially considering that Hur opted against charging Biden after the interview, in part, because he was viewed as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."
DOJ WON'T PROSECUTE AG GARLAND FOR CONTEMPT FOR REFUSAL TO TURN OVER AUDIO FROM BIDEN, HUR INTERVIEW
The lawsuit comes amid chaos in the Democratic Party as leaders consider whether Biden should continue with his re-election campaign after the president’s widely panned debate performance last week.
The committee, in its lawsuit, says the president’s invocation of executive privilege over the materials "lacks any merit," and it asks the court to overrule that assertion of privilege.
"This dispute is about a frivolous assertion of executive privilege," the lawsuit states.
As part of the House impeachment inquiry against the president, the committee issued a subpoena to Garland to obtain records related to Hur’s investigation of Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified records. The committee sought materials related to Hur’s interviews with Biden and Mark Zwonitzer, the ghostwriter of Biden’s 2017 memoir.
The Justice Department has provided the committee with transcripts of those interviews, but Garland "has refused to produce the audio recordings of the Special Counsel’s interviews with President Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer."
"Instead, Attorney General Garland asked that President Biden assert executive privilege over those recordings, and President Biden complied with that request," the lawsuit states.
The committee argues that audio recordings "are better evidence than transcripts of what happened during the Special Counsel’s interviews with President Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer."
"For example, they contain verbal and nonverbal context that is missing from a cold transcript," the committee states. "That verbal and nonverbal context is quite important here because the Special Counsel relied on the way that President Biden presented himself during their interview – ‘as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory’ – when ultimately recommending that President Biden should not be prosecuted for unlawfully retaining and disclosing classified information."
The committee argued that the audio recordings – not merely the transcripts of them – are "the best available evidence of how President Biden presented himself during the interview."
"The Committee thus needs those recordings to assess the Special Counsel’s characterization of the President, which he and White House lawyers have forcefully disputed, and ultimate recommendation that President Biden should not be prosecuted," the suit states.
The committee said Biden’s "self-serving attempt to shield the audio recording" of his interview from the public "represents an astonishing effort to expand the scope of executive privilege from a constitutional privilege safeguarding certain substantive communications to an amorphous privilege that can be molded to protect things like voice, inflection, tone and pace of speech."
The committee also noted that the transcript of the interview was made public, which essentially "waived" executive privilege."
"Additionally, the heart of the privilege claim – that Executive Branch employees will be less likely to cooperate with DOJ investigations if they know that audio recordings of their interviews may be released to Congress after DOJ has made transcripts of those same interviews publicly available – is at odds with common sense," the lawsuit states.
"If the potential for disclosure would chill cooperation, it would be the disclosure of a transcript, which DOJ voluntarily disclosed here, not the disclosure of audio recordings after the transcripts are widely available," the lawsuit states.
The committee argued that because of this, Biden’s invocation of executive privilege "lacks any merit."
"The Committee therefore asks this court to overrule the assertion of executive privilege and order that Attorney General Garland produce the audio recordings of the Special Counsel’s interviews with President Biden and Mr. Zwonitzer to the committee," the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit comes just weeks after the House of Representatives voted to hold Garland in contempt of Congress, referring him for criminal charges over defying the congressional subpoenas for the audio recordings.
The Justice Department, though, said it would not prosecute Garland.
"Consistent with this longstanding position and uniform practice, the Department has determined that the responses by Attorney General Garland to the subpoenas issued by the committees did not constitute a crime, and accordingly the Department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General," Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte told House Speaker Mike Johnson in a letter last month.
Hur, who released his report to the public in February after months of investigation, did not recommend criminal charges against Biden for mishandling and retaining classified documents, and he stated that he would not bring charges against Biden even if he were not in the Oval Office.
Those records included classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan and other countries, among other records related to national security and foreign policy, which Hur said implicated "sensitive intelligence sources and methods."
Olbermann leads left-wing meltdown against CNN, calling to ‘burn it down’ after Biden’s performance
Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann led liberal outrage toward CNN, calling for the network to be "burn[ed] down," after its moderators otherwise received praise over its forum between President Biden and former President Trump.
While bipartisan voices lauded moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, Olbermann and other Biden loyalists appeared to take their outrage at the president’s performance out on the moderators and network.
"No audience, no moderators, no journalism," Olbermann fumed as he opened the latest episode of his "Countdown" podcast.
Olbermann called what he characterized as the refusal to "fact-check" former President Trump one of the most "immoral decisions" in the history of American journalism.
"Literally, I am suggesting that at some point tonight CNN should -- it will not -- go off the air in shame, fire everybody, seal off the buildings, make sure everybody's out, and burn the Godd--- place to the ground," the onetime ESPN anchor added.
Olbermann lashed out at CNN Worldwide CEO Sir Mark Thompson and called for Bash and Tapper to be "fired for journalistic malpractice" for how the debate went on.
In an interview Friday, Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro – a Biden campaign surrogate – also criticized the network directly to anchor John Berman’s face.
"Frankly, I think CNN could have a done a better job in calling [Trump's] lies out," Shapiro said while admitting Biden had a rough night.
"I’ll be the first to admit that…," Shapiro said, while adding that Biden’s "bad night" is less egregious than Trump being a "bad president."
Rep. Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y., one of Trump’s staunchest critics who served as Democratic counsel during his impeachment, claimed CNN did not properly push back when the Republican "blatantly mischaracteriz[ed] the disaster that was his presidency."
BIDEN SENIOR ADVISER CLASHES WITH CNN ANCHOR OVER BIDEN'S DEBATE PERFORMANCE
"He intimidated your network," Goldman told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.
Former Playboy White House correspondent Brian Karem, a columnist at Salon who was known for his outbursts in the briefing room during Trump’s tenure, also took aim at Bash and Tapper.
"The biggest sin was the fact that the moderators failed to moderate the debate. A complete abdication of journalistic responsibility," Karem said, according to the Daily Mail.
Stephanie Winston Wolkoff – a former top adviser-turned-critic of former first lady Melania Trump who wrote a "tell-all" about her former boss – criticized CNN's lighting during the debate.
Wolkoff claimed on X that the network's choice of framing and lighting design conveyed "intended perceptions of fragility vs. dominance in visual composition."
"Biden was filmed in profile, looking pale as a ghost. Trump was filmed straight on, not looking his usual shade of tangerine, but more like marmalade," she said.
"Biden is a man of honor, integrity, resilience, and resolve."
Meanwhile, liberal actor John Cusack claimed CNN was letting a "deranged liar lie with no consequences," adding on X that "this is the end, my beautiful friends."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
In a statement, CNN pointed to the aforementioned bipartisan praise, citing quotes from Republicans, Democrats and Fox News talent Sean Hannity and Charlie Gasparino, defending its debate production.
"The role of the moderators is to present the candidates with questions that are important to American voters and to facilitate a debate, enabling candidates to make their case and challenge their opponent," a CNN spokesperson said.
"It is up to the candidates to challenge one another in a debate. CNN offered robust fact-checking coverage in post-debate analysis on TV and across our digital platforms during and following the debate’s conclusion."
Can Americans’ trust in the Supreme Court be restored?
Polls show Americans' trust in the Supreme Court has never been lower, especially in light of ethical lapses that lead observers to question the impartiality of justices. Correspondent David Pogue talks with experts who explain why initiatives at the nation's highest court -- from a code of ethics to term limits to the nuclear option of impeachment -- are unlikely to restore respect and trust in SCOTUS any time soon.
Trump endorses former Green Beret, Army colonel in their bids to flip House seats from blue to red
Former President Trump on Friday endorsed two Republican House candidates, both of whom served in the U.S. Army and are seeking to flip Democrat-held seats this fall.
Trump's endorsements of Derrick Anderson, a former U.S. Army Special Forces Green Beret, and Laurie Buckhout, a former Army colonel, came one day after his debate against President Biden.
In his endorsement of Anderson, the Republican nominee to represent Virginia's 7th Congressional District, Trump said, "He bravely fought for our Great Country as a Green Beret, and was deployed to Afghanistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon. Unlike the current administration, he never left anyone behind!
"Derrick is America First all the way, and he is running against a weak and pathetic Democrat named Yevgeny ‘Eugene’ Vindman who, along with Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff and others, lied to push the Ukraine Impeachment Hoax, a continuation of the greatest and most dangerous Political WITCH HUNT in the History of our Country."
FORMER SPECIAL FORCES SOLDIER LAUNCHES CAMPAIGN IN VIRGINIA TO FLIP SWING HOUSE SEAT FROM DEMOCRATS
Anderson is running for the seat held by Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat who announced in November that she would seek the Democratic Party's nomination for governor of Virginia in 2025.
"Derrick Anderson has my Complete and Total Endorsement - HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN," Trump said.
In announcing his campaign in September, Anderson told Fox News Digital he could "no longer remain silent on the sidelines."
"I have spent my life serving this country overseas, including combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Watching President Biden and Washington Democrats squander 22 years of sacrifices made by our service members and their families was the final straw for me," Anderson said at the time.
Anderson served in the Army from 2006 to 2014 before his first run for Congress in 2022. That year, he narrowly lost the Republican primary to former congressional candidate Yesli Vega. Spanberger, a former CIA operative, defeated Vega in the general election by just under 5%, securing her third term after she was first elected in the 2018 midterms.
Anderson advanced to the general election after defeating five other Republicans in the state's June 18 primary. He will face off against Vindman, the Democratic Party's nominee, Nov. 5.
In his endorsement of Buckhout, the Republican nominee to represent North Carolina's 1st Congressional District, Trump said, "Laurie bravely served our Country as an Army Colonel and Decorated Combat Commander and, in Congress, she will Grow the Economy, Lower Inflation, Uphold the Rule of Law, Secure our Border, Support our Military/Vets, and Protect our always under siege Second Amendment."
Trump said he believes Buckhout "will be an incredible Representative for the fantastic people" of the state's 1st congressional district.
"Laurie Buckhout has my Complete and Total Endorsement," the former president added.
Buckhout, who served for 26 years in the U.S. Army and reached the rank of colonel before she retired in 2010, is aiming to flip a blue House seat to red in her challenge against incumbent Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C.
Buckhout advanced to the general election in March after defeating Sandy Smith, her sole primary challenger.
Speaking to Fox News Digital earlier this year, Buckhout accused Davis, a U.S. Air Force veteran who served for 14 years in the North Carolina state Senate before getting elected to the House in Nov. 2022, of being a "career politician" who has "never had a day in his life where he's run a business."
Additionally, Buckhout accused Davis of being "beholden" to President Biden and the Democratic policies that continue to wreak havoc on her district.
Davis later fired back at Buckhout's allegations during an interview with Fox News Digital.
"Let me be clear. I want to thank Col. Buckhout for her service to our country. But I think she couldn't be more off on that whole comment because this is not about being beholden," the first-term lawmaker said. "I've heard about flipping the seat. But, for me, it's about fighting every day for families of eastern North Carolina."
Buckhout will face Davis, who ran unopposed, in the general election Nov. 5.
Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: We get it. Biden’s old, and Trump’s a convicted felon.
Jill Lawrence/The Bulwark:
Donald Trump Should Not Have Been on That Stage
Plus: What would you have done if confronted with Trump’s galloping lies?
DONALD TRUMP WON the first presidential debate the minute he walked onstage. His win was cemented a few minutes later, when the moderators addressed him as Mr. President. He had no business being there and his presence was stark evidence that our system is not only dysfunctional, it is impotent when we need it most.
The guardrails—the impeachment process, the Twenty-fifth Amendment, the courts—did not hold. They have proved to be a fairytale we spin to make ourselves feel better. They will remain just that: a fantasy destined to implode, over and over.
Maybe as soon as in the next few days, if the Supreme Court tells us whether Trump has immunity from prosecution for laws broken during his presidency. Maybe a few months from now, at the polls. Maybe next year, when his federal criminal trials will amount to something, or nothing, but too late to matter.
Grace Panetta/The 19th:
‘A missed opportunity’: Groups critical to Biden’s success say they’re shaking off bad debate
Reproductive rights groups were disappointed by Biden’s answers on abortion in Thursday night’s debate, but neither they nor voters at his Friday rally said they wanted to abandon him.
On calls with reporters Friday, leading reproductive rights advocates acknowledged that President Joe Biden’s showing in Thursday’s debate versus former President Donald Trump fell short. So too, to varying degrees, did women voters who came to the North Carolina state fairgrounds to see the president at a post-debate rally.
But all of them — key to Biden’s reelection chances — vowed to continue supporting him, seeing it as the way to avoid another Trump term.
Biden’s speech here was considerably more energetic than his performance in Thursday night’s debate, which spurred a fresh round of panic over his age, mental acuity and ability to serve another term. Top advocates also expressed disappointment with Biden’s remarks on abortion, which they viewed as a missed opportunity to make a strong argument and attack Trump on a top issue for Democrats. But the day after, Democratic voters and volunteers in North Carolina said Biden’s showing didn’t change their strong support for the president and opposition to another term for Trump.
Will Saletan/The Bulwark:
Correcting Trump’s Unanswered Debate Lies
Biden couldn’t fact-check his opponent in real time. But Trump’s torrent of bullshit needs to be shown for what it was.
“I would have much rather accepted” the 2020 election results, “but the fraud and everything else was ridiculous.”
This, again? Among Trump’s many lies, this is the most incendiary and the most thoroughly debunked. The fact that he keeps repeating it, still enjoys the full support of his party, and continues to lead in the polls is a major warning sign to our country.
“I heard him [Biden] say before, ‘insulin.’ I’m the one that got the insulin down for the seniors.”
LOL. The $35 monthly cap on out-of-pocket Insulin costs under Medicare wasn’t passed until the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. (Trump did a mini-version of this, but it was sharply limited and voluntary: Drug plans could choose to opt out of the program.)
Biden “allowed millions of people to come in here from prisons, jails, and mental institutions.”
Bullshit. Trump’s allegation isn’t even statistically plausible.
The Limited Effects of Fischer: DOJ Data Reveals Supreme Court’s Narrowing of Jan. 6th Obstruction Charges Will Have Minimal Impact
But even if the result of the Court’s ruling is to invalidate Section(c)(2) charges against those who attacked the Capitol, as the data below reveal, the government has many tools in its tool kit to hold accountable those individuals criminally responsible, and the decision will have minimal impact on its cases against the great majority of those already convicted or charged.
Rick Hasen/Election Law Blog:
Supreme Court Hands January 6 Rioters a Win in Fischer Case, But It Likely Won’t Help Trump Beat Similar Charges Against Him (Should He Ever Go To Trial on Election Interference)
The key holding in Fischer v. United States is to read the obstruction statute so that “the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so.” Rioters were not interfering with evidence, so even though they were trying to stop the counting of electoral college votes, they could not be charged with obstruction under this particular statute.
But Trump allegedly did try to obstruct the proceeding with evidence: the fake electors scheme. So those charges could potentially go forward. (We are still waiting on the immunity ruling which impacts those charges, and Trump likely has run out the clock on the trial before the election.)
Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine: What it Means for Climate Change Policy
The high court sweeps away a ‘Goliath’ of modern law, weakening agencies’ legal authority as courts weigh Biden’s policies to cut greenhouse gases.
The decision to overturn Chevron fulfills a long-held wish of conservative groups that seek a smaller role for the federal government. They are led by a network funded by the Koch family, which made its billions in the petrochemical industry. Although small fishing operations brought the case against federal regulators, they were represented by a titan of conservative law, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, and lawyers for the Cause of Action Institute, which shares an address and personnel with the Koch-funded organization Americans for Prosperity.
Ironically, the 1984 case articulating the deference principle, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, was an anti-regulatory decision. In that case, a unanimous court upheld a Reagan administration air pollution regulation that environmentalists challenged as too weak.
That rule was issued by an Environmental Protection Agency then led by the late Anne Gorsuch, a fierce opponent of regulation. Her son, Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, today wrote a lengthy concurring opinion affirming the wisdom of sweeping away the Chevron precedent, finding the reason in the roots of common law, from ancient Roman law to the efforts of King George to control the American colonies.
“Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss,” Gorsuch wrote. “In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretive rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.”
Noah Rosenbloom/The Atlantic:
The Supreme Court Won’t Stop Dismantling the Government’s Power
The decision in Jarkesy v. SEC puts much of the basic work of the executive branch at risk.
The case started as garden-variety securities fraud. According to SEC findings, the radio host George Jarkesy stole from his investors by lying to them about his investment strategy, lying about his auditor and prime broker, and lying about his take. To protect the integrity of the financial markets, the SEC forced Jarkesy to disgorge his ill-gotten gains and banned him from the securities industry. It also fined him $300,000 for good measure.
This is where the story should have ended. Instead, two Republican-appointed judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit made Jarkesy into a cause célèbre. In recent years, that court has repeatedly endorsed fringe right-wing legal efforts, such as when it struck down access to mifepristone nationwide (a decision later overturned by the Supreme Court). This has made it into a preferred forum for conservative activists seeking to use the judiciary to advance right-wing projects, among which attacking the federal government’s ability to regulate industry is a top priority.
Matt McNeill and Matt Robison talk about changing the way Democrats campaign:
GOP House speaker finally finds a reason to remove a president from office
House Speaker Mike Johnson—an architect of Donald Trump’s plan to overturn the 2020 election who had to be evacuated from the Capitol as the mob descended on Jan. 6, 2021, and who stood with Trump as a New York jury convicted the former president on 34 felony charges—says President Joe Biden should be removed from office because he had a bad debate night.
“I would ask the Cabinet members to search their hearts. … And we hope that they will do their duty, as we all seek to do our duty to do best by the American people. These are fateful moments,” Johnson told reporters Friday. “If I were in the Cabinet … I would be having that discussion with my colleagues at the Cabinet level. I would. … We'll see what action they take. It’s a serious situation.”
This is the same Mike Johnson who voted against removing Trump from office after the Capitol insurrection. He’s for removing a president because he’s old, and he’s against removing a president who is old and who tried to overthrow the government. Good to know.
Meanwhile, Johnson’s guy stood on a debate stage and lied more than 30 times, according to CNN’s fact-checking guru Daniel Dale, including:
Democratic-led states allow babies to be executed after birth, that every legal scholar and everybody in general wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, that there were no terror attacks during his presidency, that Iran didn’t fund terror groups during his presidency, that the US has provided more aid to Ukraine than Europe has, that Biden for years referred to Black people as “super predators,” that Biden is planning to quadruple people’s taxes, that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 National Guard troops for the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, that Americans don’t pay the cost of his tariffs on China and other countries, that Europe accepts no American cars, that he is the president who got the Veterans Choice program through Congress, and that fraud marred the results of the 2020 election.
Trump stood on that debate stage and refused—three times—to say he will accept the results of the next election. That’s the guy Johnson wants to see back in the White House.
And what was Trump’s main takeaway from the debate? He’s a great golfer. So please spare us your thoughts on who is fit to be president, Mr. Johnson. Oh, and fuck you.
RELATED STORIES:
New report shows Mike Johnson's role as pivotal 'architect' of 2020 election denial efforts in House
House Speaker Mike Johnson joins the clown show at Trump’s trial
Campaign Action