Elon Gives House GOP A Little Incentive For Helping The Executive Defy The Judiciary
Musk has been championing talk of impeaching federal judges who block or place temporary holds on some of Trump's most Constitution-smashing executive actions since Day 1. When judges first started shutting down some of DOGE's initial stabs at freezing and rescinding congressionally allocated federal grants and funds, Musk was one of the first to push the idea that judicial impeachments were in order.
Since then, some of Trump's closest allies in the White House and his more far-right friends in the People's House have latched onto the effort. It's been a natural escalation in some ways. As I noted in yesterday's edition of Where Things Stand, House Republicans began ceding their own check on the executive branch during shutdown talks last week. It makes a certain sense for them to begin trying to pare back the third branch of government's checks as well.
This week, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) introduced articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has attempted to keep the Trump administration in check after it defied his instructions to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. Republicans have also moved to impeach federal judges Paul Engelmayer, John McConnell Jr., John Bates and Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali.
The New York Times is now reporting that Musk has, apparently, 'made the maximum allowable donation to Republican members of Congress who support impeaching federal judges,' in the Times words, citing five people with knowledge of the matter.
Those who have received the $6,600 donation include Gill, as well as Reps. Eli Crane (R-AZ), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Andy Ogles (R-TN), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), Derrick Van Orden (R-WI). Each of these Republicans has either publicly supported impeaching judges who have ruled against the Trump administration or has taken some sort of 'action' in response to recent rulings. Musk also donated to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who criticized Boasberg.
Not content to just hand over their own authority, and thereby expanding the powers of the executive branch, Musk is giving House Republicans incentive to help the Trump administration take a sledgehammer to additional parts of our system of checks and balances.
While most of her colleagues are hiding from their constituents while at home in their states this week, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), who launched a successful primary challenge against former Rep. Liz Cheney in 2022, decided to face voters in person in her district (one that Biden won in 2020). Rather than answering questions about constituents' concerns, it appears she spent the whole time gaslighting the crowd, which was angry about the Trump administration's latest lawless executive actions. Per NBC News:
'It's so bizarre to me how obsessed you are with federal government,' Hageman told attendees, prompting more outbursts from the crowd.
'You guys are going to have a heart attack if you don't calm down,' she added. 'I'm sorry, your hysteria is just really over the top.'
She ended the town hall 15 mins early and her office later claimed that the uproar was staged by Dem activists, just as it, presumably, was for the rest of her Republican colleagues who have been berated by scared and angry constituents in recent weeks.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has brought the first criminal charges under his state's near total abortion ban against a midwife for, he claimed, providing illegal abortions. It's one of the first times since Roe was overturned that a provider has been charged. As 'Abortion, Every Day' author Jessica Valenti pointed out, it appears that Paxton is attempting to do some broader anti-abortion, but also anti-midwife care, messaging with the arrest by framing it as a crackdown on someone practicing medicine 'without a license' — rather than an outright attack on abortion access in the state.
Check out this new piece from The Bulwark, as the constitutional sheriffs movement gets in line behind Trump's mass deportations effort: Your Sheriff Might Be Planning to Help ICE Conduct Mass Deportations
MAGA Is Raging Hard Against The Judges Who Get In Its Way
The Problem With Needing Trump To Whip Your Votes
DOJ Asserts Trump Hypothetically Has Power To Purge All Female Agency Heads, Or Those Over 40
Vivian Wilson on Being Elon Musk's Estranged Daughter, Going Viral, and Protecting Trans Youth
If Trump Defies the Courts, Here's What a Judge Can Do
Tesla Recalls Cybertrucks After Steel Trim Pieces Come Loose
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
a few seconds ago
- Axios
GOP leans into Trump administration's Obama accusations
Some Republican lawmakers on Sunday platformed the administration's recent claims that Obama-era officials waged a Russia-related conspiracy against President Trump — but stopped short of endorsing the president's allegations of "treason." The big picture: Trump is again bemoaning a years-long grudge against the widely held conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, following new accusations from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard of a " treasonous conspiracy" from former President Barack Obama to sabotage Trump's first term. The initial accusations centered around findings from the Obama-era intelligence community that Russia didn't alter vote tallies by hacking election infrastructure. But as Axios' Zachary Basu and Tal Axelrod note, no serious investigation ever claimed Russia changed them. Last week, Gabbard declassified a report from 2020 that she alleges proves the Obama administration "conspired to subvert the will of the American people" and engaged in a "years-long coup against" Trump. In a rare rebuke, a spokesperson for Obama slammed the administration's claims as "a weak attempt at distraction." Driving the news: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called for an investigation into the matter Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "If there is evidence of a crime being committed or suspected evidence of a crime being committed, create a special counsel to look at it," he said. "I think that's the best way to go." Asked by NBC's Kristen Welker whether the new controversy was an attempt to distract from the ongoing fallout from the administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, Graham argued he was trying to shed light on "something we didn't know before." The other side: Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, slammed Gabbard as a "weapon of mass distraction" on "Fox News Sunday," arguing there was "no new information" released. "It's new to you, but all of this information has been available to the House Intelligence Committee, including in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, when all these investigations and reviews were done under the first Trump administration," Crow said, later adding that no information had been "purposefully hidden." In 2020, a Republican-led Senate panel affirmed the intelligence committee's conclusion that Russia meddled in the election and preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton. Zoom in: But Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), the chair of the House Intel Committee, slammed what he called the "Russia collusion hoax" in a "Fox News Sunday" interview, describing it as "a fraud perpetrated on the American people at the expense of President Trump." But "with regard to the claims of treason, I'll leave that to the courts to make that determination," he noted. The bottom line: As Trump launches fresh attacks against his predecessors, questions about his administration's handling of the disgraced financier's case are still rippling through Washington. The competing narratives of the ongoing Epstein fallout, over which the president has cried "hoax," and the reinvigorated anger over the Russia investigation are in many ways both rooted in Trump's vision of a "witch hunt" that's plagued his political career, Axios' Basu notes. Trump quickly seized on the Obama storyline, sharing a seemingly AI-generated video of the former president being arrested earlier this month, and more recently, an edited photo of himself pursuing Obama in a car chase.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Democrats hear some criticism as redistricting talk picks up
Outside groups are raising concerns that Democrats risk violating the Voting Rights Act with redistricting plans, creating a new problem for the party as it seeks to answer GOP efforts to redistrict its way to more power. Democrats say they have to take action to draw new House districts in states they control in response to power plays by a Trump-driven GOP in Texas and other states. But the tit-for-tat has left groups leaving the door open to litigation. They also are making a moral case, arguing Democrats are thwarting the democratic process. 'This is dead wrong from a democracy perspective, I think it's very problematic for Democrats from a political strategic perspective,' explained Dan Vicuna, director of voting and fair representation at Common Cause. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the only Democratic governor so far to signal he's considering several ways to counter the GOP's efforts in Texas. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Newsom said any move by California 'is predicated on Texas moving forward' with its own redistricting plan, which some have seen as a way for the Lone Star State to make it more likely to hold on to five House seats. Several other Democratic governors, including Govs. Kathy Hochul of New York, Phil Murphy of New Jersey and JB Pritzker of Illinois have left the door open to possibly changing their maps. The GOP may also not be done. The White House is reportedly pushing Missouri to consider redrawing its map. Civil rights and voting groups are worried actions by both parties could undermine or weaken the political power of historically marginalized minority communities. The issue is a thorny one for Democrats, who have positioned themselves as the prodemocracy party and championed racial justice initiatives. At the same time, Democratic states just like Republican states have been sued by civil rights groups over Voting Rights Act violations. Both Democrats and Republicans have also been found guilty of creating gerrymandered maps. 'We have sued both Democrats and Republicans on these issues,' said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'So yes, we are concerned that when leaders of either party seek to take maximum advantage, partisan advantage of redistricting, they often neglect, if not ignore, the imperatives of the Voting Rights Act with respect to reliably Democratic voting groups.' Some groups are also frustrated given efforts by blue states to move beyond gerrymandering. 'Independent commissions like the gold standard in California were created specifically to avoid what's being considered here, which is voting maps drawn for the sole purpose of protecting incumbent politicians and political party interests to the exclusion of community needs and community feedback,' Vicuna said. California Common Cause was intimately involved in the creation of California's independent commission. It could be difficult for some Democratic-held states to answer Texas. Several would likely need to change their state constitution and work around their respective redistricting commissions. Should the Lone Star State craft new House lines, John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, in a statement said they would be met 'with a wall of resistance and a wave of legal challenges.' His statement did not address Democratic-led states mulling their own midcycle redistricting. Democrats argue that if Republicans are headed down that road, nothing should be off the table for them as well. 'Republicans should be careful what they ask for,' Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), chair of the House Democrats' campaign arm, told The Hill in a statement. 'And if they go down this path? Absolutely folks are going to respond across the country. We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people.' Democrats are also leaning into the issue of democracy, saying the longevity of the country is at stake if the party does not respond. Newsom painted the situation in grim terms, saying on Friday, 'I believe that the people of the state of California understand what's at stake. If we don't put a stake into the heart of this administration, there may not be an election in 2028.' 'We can sit back and act as if we have some moral superiority and watch this 249, almost 250-year experiment be washed away,' Newsom said. 'We are not going to allow that to happen. We have agency, we can shape the future.' Civil rights and voting-focused groups, however, are concerned about the ramifications midcycle redistricting could have moving forward, including the possibility of what was once considered a decennial process after each U.S. census turning into a cyclical issue. 'One of the concerns that we have is, even if blue states have power and have a majority in their legislature to redraw maps, our concern is that this could set a bad precedent, because those states could, at the same time, flip in the future,' said Jose Barrera Novoa, vice president of the far west for the League of United Latin American Citizens. 'And the same thing is going to happen where … other parties are going to look to redraw the map midcycle or even quarterly. Who knows?' he asked. 'It's all hypothetical, yet it's still very possible.' Not only could a potential redistricting tit-for-tat raise questions over whether this could be repeated in the future, experts also worry about the financial toll it could take on their resources and voters themselves. 'These are judges managing these cases, hearing these cases. Many of these people are paid out by state funds, and federal cases, of course, are also paid by voters directly,' explained Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, noting cases that use taxpayer funds. 'Do we really want to spend this time doing this highly unusual activity when we're all going to have to pay for it?'
Boston Globe
a few seconds ago
- Boston Globe
It's a year of rapid change, except when it comes to Trump's approval numbers, AP-NORC polling finds
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Advertisement But even those shifts are within a relatively narrow range, which is typical for Trump. Advertisement Those long-term trends underscore that Trump has many steadfast opponents. But loyal supporters also help explain why views of the president are hard to change even as he pursues policies that most Americans do not support, using an approach that many find abrasive. Trump has not had a traditional honeymoon period in his second term. He did not in his first, either. The recent slippage on immigration is particularly significant because that issue was a major strength for Trump in the 2024 election. Earlier in his second term, it was also one of the few areas where he was outperforming his overall approval. In March, about half of US adults approved of his handling of immigration. But the July AP-NORC poll found his approval on immigration at 43 percent, in line with his overall approval rating. Other recent polls show growing discontent with Trump's approach to immigration. Advertisement 'I understand wanting to get rid of illegal immigrants, but the way that's being done is very aggressive,' said Donovan Baldwin, 18, of Asheboro, N.C., who did not vote in the 2024 election. 'And that's why people are protesting because it comes off as aggression. It's not right.' Ratings of Trump's handling of the economy, which were more positive during his first term, have been persistently negative in his second term. The July poll found that few Americans think Trump's policies have benefited them so far. Even if he is not a fan of everything Trump has done so far, Brian Nichols, 58, of Albuquerque, is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Nichols, who voted for Trump in 2024, likes what he is seeing from the president overall, though he has his concerns both on style and substance, particularly Trump's social media presence and his on-again, off-again tariffs. Nichols also does not like the push to eliminate federal agencies such as the Education Department. Despite his occasional disagreements with Trump, though, Nichols said he wants to give the president space to do his job, and he trusts the House and Senate, now run by Republicans, to act as a safeguard. 'We put him into office for a reason, and we should be trusting that he's doing the job for the best of America,' Nichols said. Trump has spent the past six months pushing far-reaching and often unpopular policies. Earlier this year, Americans were bracing themselves for higher prices as a result of his approach to tariffs. The July poll found that most people think Trump's tax and spending bill will benefit the wealthy, while few think it will pay dividends for the middle class or people like them. Advertisement Discomfort with individual policies may not translate into wholesale changes in views of Trump, though. Those have largely been constant through years of turmoil, with his favorability rating staying within a 10-percentage-point range through the COVID-19 pandemic, a felony conviction, and attempted assassination. To some of his supporters, the benefits of his presidency far outweigh the costs. Kim Schultz, 62, of Springhill, Fla., said she is thrilled with just about everything Trump is doing as president, particularly his aggressive moves to deport anyone living in the country illegally. Even if Trump's tariffs eventually take effect and push prices up, she said she will not be alarmed. 'I've always had the opinion that if the tariffs are going to cost me a little bit more here and there, I don't have a problem with that,' she said. Across the country, Hildenbrand dislikes Trump's personality and his penchant for insults, including those directed at foreign leaders. But he thinks Trump is making things happen. 'More or less, to me, he's showing that he's on the right track,' he said. 'I'm not in favor of Trump's personality, but I am in favor of what he's getting done.'
