Rahm Emanuel on ‘blinded' Hunter Biden criticism: ‘I think we're giving this more time than it's due'
Emanuel responded on Monday to a clip of the younger Biden's remarks during an interview on SiriusXM's 'The Megyn Kelly Show,' saying he's 'got empathy' for him, but doesn't take the criticism too seriously.
'I think we're giving this more time than it's due,' he said. 'That's my own view. A little empathetic, you have a son who's blinded by his own love for, in effect, and loyalty for his father, and I get that, but not the first phone call I'm going to make for a strategery.'
Earlier Monday, Hunter Biden paraphrased remarks from 'Rahm f—ing Emanuel' in an interview with journalist and YouTube personality Andrew Callaghan.
'We got to understand that these people are really mad, and we got to appeal to these white voters,' Biden said. He then responded to the sentiment.
'Rahm, the only people that f—ing appeal to those f—ing white voters was Joe Biden,' he replied. '81 years old and he got 81 million votes… not because he appeased their f—ing Trumpian sense but because he challenged it, and he said, 'You can be an 81-year-old Catholic from f—ing Scranton that doesn't understand it but still has empathy for transgender people and immigrants.''
Emanuel has served in a multitude of political positions — from Chicago mayor to former President Obama's White House chief of staff, to senior adviser to former President Clinton to chair of the House Democrats' campaign arm, among others.
He has indicated his interest in launching a 2028 presidential run and has begun to position himself to the right of some progressive members of his party.
In the same interview, Emanuel told Kelly that he does not think a man can 'become a woman,' breaking with his party on the issue of transgender rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
18 minutes ago
- NBC News
As Texas plows ahead with new maps, governors grapple with the prospect of mid-decade redistricting
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — As Texas Republicans plow ahead with a plan to redraw congressional maps ahead of schedule, many governors are increasingly grappling with an issue that they didn't think they'd have to confront until the end of the decade. Texas' unscheduled redistricting effort — which Republicans hope could help protect their narrow House majority during next year's midterm elections — has had a ripple effect, with governors across the country floating the possibility of following suit to either add to or counter or the plan, depending on their party affiliation. At the summer meeting of the bipartisan National Governors Association in Colorado Springs, Democrats largely condemned the efforts in Texas while cheering on efforts by members of their own party in other states. 'It's deplorable,' New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, said in an interview on the sidelines of the summit, referring to Texas Republicans' attempt. When it came to threats by Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and Kathy Hochul of New York to forge ahead with plans to redraw congressional lines in their states, Murphy added, 'I don't think we have a choice.' 'If they're going to play these games, we're going to have to be just as aggressive,' Murphy said, adding that 'we can't bring a knife to a gunfight.' Asked if he'd condone a redistricting effort in New Jersey, Murphy said 'all options are on the table in New Jersey,' though he acknowledged that there were major obstacles to doing so. 'I fear there are significant constitutional constraints here in our own [state] constitution,' he said. In New Jersey, like in many other states, an independent commission oversees redistricting. 'But we are looking at all options — and we have to, as Democrats. If this is the way the other guys are going to go, we have to respond forcefully,' Murphy said. 'We have no choice.' Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Josh Green called the actions by Texas Republicans 'really sinister,' 'unconscionable' and 'completely unethical,' and called on his fellow Democratic governors to 'fight fire with fire.' 'It's an obvious attempt to steal elections,' Green said, though he also said that 'the Democratic Party can't stand by and watch it happen.' 'It's very unfortunate, because two wrongs don't make a right. But we can't allow one party to break the rules and then consistently in the future break more rules,' he added. 'It's turning into a knife fight,' Green said. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott kicked off a special legislative session on Monday, with congressional redistricting one of the topics on lawmakers' to-do list. The New York Times reported last month that members of Trump's political operation had privately urged Texas Republicans to redraw their maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. And Trump himself has publicly praised the efforts, urging Texas lawmakers to take actions that would help the GOP gain five House seats. Republicans currently control 25 of Texas' 38 congressional districts. The redistricting process typically occurs at the start of each new decade, when new census data is available. Texas' current maps were drawn in 2021, following the 2020 census, though they are still being fought over in court. The Republican effort in Texas has prompted some Democrats to fight back by threatening their own mid-decade redistricting schemes. Most prominently, Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has raised the idea of redrawing California's maps. But that effort would come with major obstacles: An independent commission controls the redistricting process in California, not the governor. On Thursday, Hochul entered the fray as well, responding to a question about redistricting in New York by saying: 'All's fair in love and war,' according to Politico. While not promising action, she added that she'd 'look at it closely with' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. Elsewhere, Illinois' Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker responded to a question about whether his state should pursue redistricting to counterbalance Texas' push by accusing Republicans of trying to 'cheat' ahead of the midterms. And a spokesman for Maryland's Democratic Gov. Wes Moore told The New York Times this week he will 'continue to evaluate all options.' On the other side of the aisle, just days after the state Supreme Court upheld the state's newest congressional map, Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said that 'there may be more defects that need to be remedied.' He added that population shifts in the state since the census has led him to believe the state is 'malapportioned' and that it 'would be appropriate to do a redistricting here in the mid-decade.' And in Ohio, state lawmakers are required to draw new congressional maps before 2026 because their current lines passed without bipartisan support. Republicans control 10 of Ohio's 15 House seats. Other Democratic leaders at the NGA did not urge their party's fellow governors to move forward with their own redistricting plans. 'I would really call upon Texas Republicans to not yield to the temptation and to stick with the map that they themselves drew that benefits Republicans in the Texas delegation and continue with that until the normal redistricting period occurs at the end of the decade,' Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said in an interview. In Colorado, like in California, redistricting efforts are overseen by an independent commission. Meanwhile, some Republicans at the NGA expressed displeasure with the redistricting threats from both parties. 'I'll be perfectly honest. I only think about it once every 10 years,' Utah GOP Gov. Spencer Cox said in an interview. 'Obviously, there's concerns about gerrymandering, and both sides are doing it — you know, nobody has clean hands.' 'I don't love it. I wish there was a better way. I wish there was a nonpartisan way. Lots of states have tried,' Cox added. Former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, said he'd refuse to condemn Texas' efforts, even though he himself helped Colorado advance its own independent redistricting commission. 'So long as so many Democratic states still redistrict the old-fashioned way, so will Republican states. So I have no criticism for Texas, given that they're working within the same rules that have governed so many states — Democrats and Republicans — in the past,' Owens said. He added that his own approach, if he were still governor, 'would be to try to do redistricting in a bipartisan fashion.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Jeffries hammers Trump on Gaza, calls for increased aid
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized President Trump over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, calling for an immediate ceasefire, increased aid to the war-torn enclave and the release of all remaining hostages held by the Palestinian militant group. 'During the first six months of Donald Trump's time in office, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached a breaking point, hostages are still being held by Hamas despite the President's promise they would be released and the pre-existing ceasefire the administration inherited has been breached,' Jeffries said in a statement on Friday. 'The starvation and death of Palestinian children and civilians in an ongoing war zone is unacceptable.' 'The Trump administration has the ability to bring an end to this humanitarian crisis. They must act now,' he added. Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff said on Thursday that the U.S. will step away from peace negotiations in the region and is now considering alternative ways to free the hostages taken by Hamas during the Oct. 7, 2023, surprise attack on Israel. 'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza,' Witkoff said in a statement. 'It is a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza.' The Hill has reached out to the White House spokesperson for comment. Dozens of aid groups have warned that the Gaza Strip is on the brink of starvation, with one in five children being malnourished in Gaza City, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military while waiting in food lines, according to the UN. Israel has argued that Hamas, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist group, 'operates every day to create a perception of crisis.' U.S. allies, including Australia, the United Kingdom and France, have similarly sounded the alarm over humanitarian conditions in the strip and have called for more aid. The House Democratic leader also reupped his calls for a two-state solution in the nearly two-year conflict. 'It is imperative that humanitarian aid be surged into Gaza immediately, the remaining Israeli hostages be released and the ceasefire negotiated by the Biden administration restored. We need a just and lasting peace,' Jeffries said in his statement. 'Ultimately, that will only occur through a two-state solution that facilitates a safe and secure Israel living side by side with a Palestinian state that provides dignity, self-determination and prosperity for its people,' the New York Democrat added. To help out the Palestinians, Israel is allowing Jordan and the United Arab Emirates to air-drop aid packages into Gaza. The 2023 terrorist attack left some 1,200 Israeli's dead and roughly 250 hostages were taken captive. Nearly two years later, the Israeli military has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to local health affiliates. That number does not distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters.
