Former New York City Mayor Eric Adams is trolling his successor by vowing to attend the Israel Day Parade. Adams took to social media to declare that […]
Advocates for disability rights are fighting the lawsuit, which would push more people to be warehoused in institutions.
When the history of the sordid and cruel megalomaniac who now occupies the Oval Office is written, it may well be that his deal with himself to set up a $1.8 billion fund for reimbursing anyone he feels was harmed by the federal government is chronicled as the final straw. Why not Trump’s absurd tariffs, which are really import taxes passed on to consumers? Why not Trump’s needless war against Iran, which caused prices to soar and is unlikely to result in a better deal on its nuclear ambitions than the one struck by Obama? Why not his cruel ICE and Border Patrol dragnets? Why not the Epstein files or dozens of other lawless or outrageous things he’s done?I think because almost everyone knows that the fund will be used to pay off Trump’s supporters — including the 1,500 who attacked the U.S. Capitol and then were imprisoned for it — and that paying them is a bridge too far. This morning a federal judge barred the government from taking steps to launch the fund or process payments at least until a hearing is held in June in a pending lawsuit challenging its legality. The order came in a case brought by a group of individuals and entities who say they have faced partisan attacks by the Trump regime but who say they expect to be excluded from accessing the fund. It’s unusual, to say the least, that such a group would be recognized by a court as having standing to bring such a suit, because their status is entirely speculative. They merely expect to be excluded. But such is the level of cynicism about the motives and processes of Trump that even a district court judge would automatically recognize the validity of such an expectation. It is impossible to conceive that those who have been attacked by Trump’s Justice Department — such as former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — would be compensated by Trump’s fund. Nor would the former federal prosecutor who claims he was fired for his work on the January 6 investigation, or people arrested while protesting immigration raids. Other lawsuits challenging the fund have been filed in the District of Columbia and in California. But the interesting thing is it’s not just lawsuits, and it’s not just Democrats. A number of prominent Republican lawmakers have publicly objected to the fund. The fact that public money would be spent, and that the fund would be entirely under Trump’s control, also figures in.Remarkably, 35 former federal judges on Wednesday urged the judge who closed Trump’s case with the IRS — the origin of the fund — to take another look at the terms of the deal. I can’t recall another instance of former judges petitioning a sitting judge to take another look at the terms of a settlement.The stench of Trump’s self-dealing, compounded by the absurdity of his suing his own Justice Department for $10 billion — and the department’s responding with a “deal” that would give him $1.8 billion to reward his supporters, and future immunity from IRS audits — seems to have tipped some set of cosmic scales. The scales of justice and also the political scales. Republican members of Congress are hearing an uproar from their constituents about this, which persuaded many to leave town without acting on Trump’s second big reconciliation bill. I asked earlier this week if Trump has finally overplayed his hand. I believe the cumulative effects of all his wanton and harmful initiatives over the last several months are now setting in. The $1.8 billion fund will be seen as the straw that broke Trump’s legal and political back — the act of hubris that illuminated all the other acts of hubris, the very emblem of Trump’s contempt for anything and everyone beyond himself and his own self-glorification. Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
The Pentagon has decreed that only fit members of the military may attend the White House Ultimate Fighting Championship fight scheduled for next month. The fight, referred […]
A federal judge refused Thursday to block President Donald Trump’s executive order to illegally limit mail-in voting, clearing the way to disenfranchise millions of voters for the upcoming midterm elections. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee based in Washington, rejected the challenge from Democrats and civil rights groups. He sided with the Trump administration’s argument that it was too soon to block the order because it hadn’t actually been implemented yet.“The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote in his ruling. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”Trump’s executive order, signed in late March, directed that states could notify the U.S. Postal Service whether they plan to allow mail-in or absentee ballots up to 90 days before a federal election, and “should” notify the agency whether they intend to supply a list of eligible voters within 60 days of the election. The order also directed USPS to produce a set of mail-in and absentee participation lists for each state, and to refuse to deliver ballots for anyone who is not on the lists. There is no law that requires states to provide this information to the USPS, or authorizes USPS to require states to provide that data. Trump’s order has been described by Democratic leaders as a “desperate, illegal power grab” and “laughably unconstitutional.”A judge could still oppose Trump’s executive order as part of a separate legal challenge in Boston. But in the meantime, the way is clear for USPS to make rules that could prevent millions from voting during the upcoming midterm elections. Democratic lawmakers have urged the Postal Service’s Board of Governors to reject Trump’s directive, as the president has no authority over the USPS, which is an independent agency only accountable to its own board of governors. Lawmakers warned that the USPS is also specifically barred from discriminating against users of the mail, and Trump’s executive order would have the agency illegally perform election administration duties.
The city’s finalized approach will undercount violations and do too little to address them, says Vancouver Anti-FIFA Coalition.
Right-wing journalist John Solomon predicted Thursday, outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard will make a dramatic exit by releasing evidence claiming to prove foreign interference in the 2020 election. Solomon, who works closely with Gabbard on declassifications, spoke with Bannon on the "War Room" podcast. "Tulsi is gonna go out in a blaze of glory in her final month because she will be able to release in succession some extraordinary evidence of foreign interference in our election in 2020 and since," Solomon shared.Solomon claimed the intelligence community concealed evidence of "active measures" by China, Iran, and other adversaries, and alleged Gabbard would systematically destroy the official narrative that 2020 was secure. He also claimed China interfered with voter databases in multiple states and made unverified allegations about Ukraine laundering federal grants to Former President Joe Biden's campaign. Gabbard resigned in May, citing her husband's cancer diagnosis. During her tenure, she was involved in President Donald Trump's 2020 election efforts, including overseeing ballot seizures in Georgia and voting machine confiscation in Puerto Rico.Watch the video below. Your browser does not support the video tag.
EXCLUSIVE — Two education watchdogs, Defending Education and Do No Harm, filed a joint complaint with the Justice Department’s Office of Civil Rights on Thursday, alleging that Oregon has illegally considered race in its education funding policies. The Oregon Department of Education requires that 65% of a charter school’s student body be from a minority […]