I told Betty I'd cover some good court verdicts tonight.
She covers The Supreme Court that has morphed into The Crooked Court as
it exists solely to insist that Chump's breaking the law is fine and
dandy. As she often notes, however, our federal and state courts are
doing their job and then some.
A
judge ruled Tuesday that the top federal prosecutor in Nevada is not
serving legally in the role — marking the second time that a judge has
partially sidelined one of the Trump administration's prosecutors.
Sigal
Chattah was named interim U.S. attorney for the district of Nevada in
March, a temporary appointment that's legally limited to 120 days. But
in July, shortly before that time limit ran out, the Justice Department
shifted Chattah to a different job that would allow her to serve as
acting U.S. attorney — a separate role that would still let Chattah lead
the office.
A group of
four criminal defendants argued that this maneuver resulted in Chattah
serving as acting U.S. attorney for Nevada illegally. In a ruling
Tuesday, U.S. District Judge David Campbell sided with the defendants
and barred Chattah from supervising their cases. He declined to dismiss
their indictments altogether.
Under the Federal
Vacancies Reform Act, if the position of U.S. attorney — a
Senate-confirmed post that oversees prosecutions in a court district —
becomes vacant, it is supposed to be filled automatically by the first
assistant U.S. attorney, who is typically a top career prosecutor.
Campbell ruled Tuesday that the Justice Department wasn't legally
allowed to shift Chattah to the role of first assistant U.S. attorney in
order to have her take on the acting job.
"The
Court cannot accept the government's assertion that the Attorney
General has power to designate anyone she chooses as first assistant and
have that person become the acting U.S. Attorney," the judge wrote in a
32-page ruling. "The [Federal Vacancies Reform Act] was enacted to put
an end to precisely such Executive actions."
Campbell
also ruled that the Justice Department can't delegate the responsibility
of overseeing criminal cases to Chattah even if she doesn't officially
hold the job: "The Court cannot conclude that Ms. Chattah's role is
anything less than Acting U.S. Attorney, a position she cannot hold."
AP adds,
"It was the second setback in recent weeks for the Trump
administration’s effort to extend handpicked acting U.S. attorneys
beyond the 120-day limit set by federal law. A judge reached the same
conclusion as Campbell in August in ruling acting U.S. attorney in New
Jersey, Alina Habba, was in the job illegally." So applause and thanks
for Judge David Campbell. Another judge standing by the law is reported on by Ja'han Jones (MSNBC):
Death, taxes and Kari Lake being rebuked in court.
The
latter of life’s certainties played out in a Washington courtroom on
Monday as a federal judge temporarily blocked Lake — in her capacity as
acting CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media — from eliminating the
jobs of more than 500 employees from the taxpayer-funded Voice of
America news organization.
Lake,
a former local news anchor-turned-failed political candidate in
Arizona, has effectively tried to gut USAGM since Donald Trump selected
her to run the agency this year. Lake and the Trump administration had
been moving forward with plans to lay off the VOA employees — in
defiance of a court-ordered demand that the agency comply with
established processes to carry out the cuts.
In
light of that, U.S. District Judge Royce Lambert found himself in a
scenario similar to that of the judges who oversaw Lake’s dubious
election-related lawsuits as a candidate: having to take her to task.
The Reagan appointee’s ruling blocked the firings for now and described
Lake’s actions as potential contempt of court:
The
Court must offer an observation on the concerning disrespect the
defendants have shown toward the Court’s orders since the entry of the
preliminary injunction. It is the Court’s view that the defendants’
disregard for its earlier orders to produce information would more than
support a trial on civil contempt.
Lambert said
Lake’s agency was resistant when it was asked to provide information
about its plans to fire the employees. He also said that after he handed
down his injunction, officials falsely claimed to the court they hadn’t
made any decisions on job cuts when evidence showed they were already
moving forward.
She
really thought she could blow off the court. She thought she was above
the law. Good for Judge Royce Lambert for saying uh-uh, you aren't
above the law. Our third case is reported on by Newsweek's Robert Alexander:
A
federal judge in Rhode Island on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Trump
administration from cutting $233 million in counterterrorism and
emergency preparedness grants from a group of Democratic-led states.
The
order came one day after those states sued the administration, alleging
the funding shift was politically motivated and legally unsupported.
[. . .]
At
stake is far more than a budget dispute. The fight tests how much power
a presidential administration has to reshape long-standing emergency
preparedness funding and whether it can pressure states over unrelated
policy disputes, such as immigration enforcement.
Billions
in FEMA grants underpin critical counterterrorism and disaster response
programs—from bomb squads in New York to statewide intelligence
networks in Illinois—and abrupt, unexplained cuts could disrupt years of
planning.
The outcome will help define the
limits of executive discretion over funds Congress intended to be
risk-based and politically neutral, with broad implications for
federal-state relations and public safety.
Wednesday, October 1, 2025. The government is in shutdown, AOC and
Senators Patty Murray, Ed Markey and Adam Schiff explain why that is
(they're protecting the American people), Chump remains haunted by the
Esptein-Maxwell crimes, turns out a Republican senator voted last month
not to release the Epstein files without informing people of her long
relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell and Maxwell's current husband,
Chump and Miss Pete conducted a beauty seminar for the military brass
yesterday, and much more.
There is a lot to cover.
We're going to start with Epstein and Maxwell. Epstein was a sex
trafficker and pedophile. He got convicted and took his own life.
Ghislaine Maxwell was his accomplice who also molested young girls and
also engaged in sex trafficking. She got convicted and was in
appropriate prison in Florida. Enter Donald Chump. Friends of both
and roll dog of Jeffries in their hunt for females for at least 15
years, he ran promising to release The Epstein Files. And Attorney
General Pam Bondi went on FOX "NEWS" to tell the world that the client
list was sitting on her desk awaiting her review. Months go by and no
release of the client list or any real files not already available to
the public. That's due to the fact that she meets with Chump in the
spring and tells him how many times he's mentioned in the files. At the
start of July, Americans are suddenly told there is no client list.
Nothing to see here.
Then,
as the month of July winds down, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche
rushes to Florida and meets with Maxwell on the 24th and 25th. The deal
for the meet up was "quid pro quo" per Ghislaine's own attorney. She
talks -- nd possibly agrees not to implicate Chump -- and she gets a
transfer to a lighter prison. Despite the fact that being convicted
sex offender should not allow her to move to "Camp Fed" in Bryan, Texas
the crook convicted to 20 years is moved to the lighter security. After
Blanche tells Chump that Maxwell said nothing to incriminate him. The
move is not announced. After the fact, when it's discovered by the
press and the public, Chump denies any involvement or knowledge. For
someone who never stops lying you'd think he'd get better at it.
He
keeps thinking he can make tis go away. They honestly thought they'd
killed the topic July 4th weekend. It has not gone away and it is not
going away. The only thing killed was the trust some MAGA put in him,
they really thought -- based on a lot of whispered rumors throughout his
first term as president and immediately after -- that he cared about
holding sex offenders accountable.
To try to
bury the topic, Speaker of the Closet Mike Johnson shut down the House
of Representatives at one point. Tuesday of last week, Adelita Grijalva
became the newest member of the House. Yet Speaker of the Closet
Johnson refuses to sit her. She is expected to provide a signature to
the House call to release the files and force the issue.
Jim
Jordan is a member of Congress. He is also accused by several men of
looking the other way when he was a coach and the team doctor was
molesting them and raping them. He's accused of joking about it. Of
covering it up. And in one instance, of grabbing the junk of a player
complaining to him and saying, "Like this! He grabbed you like this!"
This is ongoing but somehow he got to lead a Committee hearing recently and dismiss the survivors of Epstein and Maxwell.
That's because corruption runs deep.
But
we don't always know how deep. In the US Senate, a measure in support
of the survivors were killed via votes from Repulicans. That includes
one Republican who apparently shouldn't have been voting. Lisa
Murkowski is a US senator from the state of Alaska and new information
emerging states that she is a lifelong friend of Ghislaine Maxwell's
current husband -- a detail that should have been made public and should
have prevented her from voting.
This new information was covered yesterday on THE TARA PALMERI SHOW.
In addition, Tara and Abi Baker reported on it here:
Part
one of the series zeroes in on Epstein survivor and Alaskan Marijke
Chartouni, who has turned her attention to Republican Sen. Lisa
Murkowski (R-Alaska), the deciding vote on September 10 to block the
release of the Epstein files. Chartouni uncovered Murkowski’s
longstanding ties to Ghislaine Maxwell’s husband, Scott Borgerson, and
the many occasions Murkowski appeared on stage with Maxwell at
ocean-advocacy conferences. They were appearances that, intentionally or
not, helped launder Maxwell’s name even as she was publicly linked to
Epstein.
Chartouni’s foray into opposition research came
after a crushing moment: she was misled by Rep. Harriet Hageman
(R-Wyo.) at Reagan National Airport into believing that she had voted
for the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, co-sponsored by Reps.
Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna,
which needed only two more votes at the time. Chartouni burst into
tears of joy. But it was a lie. Hageman had only backed Speaker Mike
Johnson’s countermeasure, which was a move designed to bury the issue in
the sham investigation run by the House Oversight Committee.
Chartouni
was devastated but she quickly learned the vocabulary of Washington:
spin, obfuscate, deceit. She and her fellow survivors refuse to fold. If
anything, Hageman’s duplicity made them more determined. “We’re sharing
info and lobbying,” Chartouni texted me. They’re now playing D.C. at
its own game, using one of its sharpest tools: opposition research.
So when Murkowski cast that fateful vote on the Epstein files, Chartouni took it personally.
“She needs to be shamed!” the usually soft-spoken survivor told me. “I’m from Alaska. It’s personal.”
And
she didn’t stop there. She started digging. Why would Murkowski, who
has occasionally broken with Trump and previously suggested the files
should be released, suddenly reverse course?
What she
uncovered was a tangle of connections between Murkowski, Maxwell, her
husband Borgerson, and Anchorage Daily News publisher and political
donor Alice Rogoff. Through the Arctic
Circle conference circuit, Murkowski repeatedly overlapped with
Borgerson, and once with Maxwell herself—a well-known convicted sex
offender’s right hand and later a convicted trafficker. For Murkowski,
the release of those files isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about
reminders of who she chose to share a stage with, and what that
signified.
What else is Lisa Murkowski hiding? Tight with pedophiles, the question needs to be asked: What else is she hiding?
Epstein
and Maxwell got sweet heart deals and were protected by many people.
Don't take my word for it, Chump declared that over and over in public.
Was Lisa one of the helpers? She's certainly a helper now. Did it go
beyond that? I don't know. But if she and or her husband were also
clients of Epstein and Maxwell would it be surprising now that we know
she lied to the public, she hid her friendship and she voted against the
release of the files?
Powerful people protected
Epstein and Maawell. Powerful people continue to protect. Lisa
Murkowski needs to hold a press conference and answer questions
including what their relationship was and why she thought it was
appropriate to vote "no" on the release of files that her own name could
be in.
Last night on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show, Lawrence
spoke with US House Rep Ro Khanna about the release of these files, how
October 7th should see the newly elected Democrat to the House finally
seated and how Alan Dershowitz trashed these survivors repeatedly.
BLOOMBERG NEWS has done outstanding work on the issue. That includes last month's "Epstein's Inbox"
-- their exclusive report by Jason Leopold, Ava
Benny-Morrison, Jeff Kao, Dhruy Mehrotra, Suray Mattu, Harry Wilson and
Max Abelson. And here's a video report that they did on that.
Stupidity
must run in the Chump family. How else to explain Don Junior's failure
to grasp what he witnessed. "They tried to impeach my father two
times!" Michael Luciano (MEDIAITE) quotes
Junior whining that on one of the lesser known right-wing stations.
Congress did not try to impeach him. They impeached him. Two times.
Twice your loser father was impeached. He wasn't removed from office.
But he was impeached. Twice. What an idiot.
"It's a
bad look," Miss Pete said sashaying across the stage yesterday at
Quantico as he lectured the military brass that no-one-loves-a-fatty and
beards are not on his list of personal list of turn-ons. He was the
opening act for the Convicted Felon.
Donald Chump was slurring his words yesterday.
Was he drunk that early in the morning or it was more of his ongoing
dementia? He was speaking at Quantico with his man crush Pete Looselips
Hegseth. Maybe Chump was drunk, speaking to a military audience had to
be intimidating for the nothing who lied to avoid the Vietnam War.
People were being drafted. I have no problem with war resisters who
protested the war. But that wasn't Chump. He was part of the wealthy
White kids who got away without serving by paying off a doctor to lie
for them. Bone spurs. What a joke. So he may have been intimidated or
guilty and that might have led him to get blotto before taking the
stage. From the moment he entered the hall, he underwhelmed the
assembled. Dan Gooding (NEWSWEEK) notes,
"Hegseth told senior military leaders that Trump had their backs as he
introduced the president, who was met with near silence from the
hundreds of gathered personnel" and quotes Chump stating, "I’ve never
walked into a room so silent before." It only got worse for Chumps. Josh Wingrove, Natalia Drozdiak and Courtney McBride (BLOOMBERG NEWS) report:
President
Donald Trump told top military brass that the US is fighting an
“invasion from within,” as he used a highly unusual gathering of
officers stationed around the world to deliver a largely political
speech that highlighted border security and rooting out “woke” culture.
“After
spending trillions of dollars defending the borders of foreign
countries, with your help, we’re defending the borders of our country,”
Trump said on Tuesday at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia.
“It’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control,” he added.
Sounding
more and more like he was drunk -- dementia can mimic the
appearance of being intoxicated. Either would explain this statement
from Chump, "We should use some of these dangerous cities as
training grounds for our military." No. No, we shouldn't. We're not
supposed to carry out war games amidst civilian populations. It's
amazing what COWARD Chump wants to force the military to do. Too much
of a coward to serve himself he thinks the US military is his own
personal set of toys.
This issue is established and established long, long ago.
In
British and American law, a posse comitatus is a group of people who
are mobilized by the sheriff to suppress lawlessness in the county. In
any classic Western film, when a lawman gathers a “posse” to pursue the
outlaws, they are forming a posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act is
so named because one of the things it prohibits is using soldiers rather
than civilians as a posse comitatus.
What are the origins of the Posse Comitatus Act?
The
Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878, after the end of Reconstruction
and the return of white supremacists to political power in both
southern states and Congress. Through the law, Congress sought to ensure
that the federal military would not be used to intervene in the
establishment of Jim Crow in the former Confederacy.
Despite
the ignominious origins of the law itself, the broader principle that
the military should not be allowed to interfere in the affairs of
civilian government is a core American value. It finds expression in the
Constitution’s division of power over the military between Congress and
the president, and in the guarantees of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and
Sixth Amendments, which were in part reactions to abuses committed by
the British army against American colonists.
Today,
the Posse Comitatus Act operates as an extension of these
constitutional safeguards. Moreover, there are statutory exceptions to
the law that allow the president to use the military to suppress genuine
rebellions and to enforce federal civil rights laws.
What does the Posse Comitatus Act say?
The
Posse Comitatus Act consists of just one sentence: “Whoever, except in
cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution
or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the
Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or
otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
In
practice, this means that members of the military who are subject to
the law may not participate in civilian law enforcement unless doing so
is expressly authorized by a statute or the Constitution.
On using the military in cities, Chump also felt the need to state:
And
I told Pete we should use some of these dangerous cities as training
grounds for our military -- National Guard, but military -- because
we’re going into Chicago very soon. That’s a big city with an
incompetent governor. Stupid governor. Stupid. They threw him out of
his family business. He was so stupid. I know the family. He becomes
governor. He’s got money. Not money that he made. But he ran for
governor. He won.
Excuse me?
I
know JB. Chump's describing himself. He's incompetent. He's stupid.
He's never made money but he lost a ton. JB was an orphan with both
parents dying before he was 18. Do people not know that? Do they hear
Chump's lies and nod along? Are people really that stupid? JB's never
declared bankruptcy. He and his siblings donating to charity big time
-- unlike cheap Chump. He met MK at the end of the 80s and they married
in 1993 and are still together. By contrast, during that same period
of time, Donald Trump abandoned first wife Ivana, he married and
divorced Marla Maples, married Melanie and still found time to spend 15
or so years with roll dog and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Also, JB's a
billionaire. Chump's not. Even with all his grifting thus far, he's
not. Don't shoot back some estimates. Most of us knew he overinflated
his wealth for years and we're aware that he still does. Add in that if
he ever gets around to paying E Jean Carroll, he'll be even further
from a billionaire.
The
point is that both men came from well off families -- you could use rich
for JB. Chump stumbled around and was a slumlord -- does no one
remember Barbara Ehrenreich on the Chump casinos? -- who declared
bankruptcy multiple times. JB went to law school. He made something of
himself. He and MK also made a happy marriage and family.
That's got to really hurt Chump.
No doubt JB's statements on MSNBC hurt Chump as well.
When not attempting to destroy our democracy on the eve of the tricentennial, Chump just muttered useless nonsense. Maria Villarroel (IRISH STAR) report is
headlined "Senile Donald Trump says an event 76 years ago was the
'first sign of wokeness'" and that really does sum it up. Zachary Leeman (MEDIAITE) sums up a portion of the speech with this, "Trump
ran through a large variety of topics during his talk, at one point
expressing frustration at the potential of him not receiving the Nobel
Peace Prize -- while also insisting he doesn’t desire the prize." Chump
used 191 words to whine about the Nobel Peace Prize, how he deserved it
but they wouldn't give it to him, and he didn't even want it, not
himself, it was the country deserved it and --
He
thinks he's the Susan Lucci of world leaders. Reality, Susan
eventually won a Daytime Emmy. Chump's not ever going to win a Nobel
Peace Prize. Not happening. For more on that, see Elaine's "No, Chump does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize."
He
found time in his mealy mouthed speech to repeatedly praise War
Criminal Vladimir Putin by name while repeatedly trashing former US
President Joe Biden.
He attacked CNN and AP. He attacked Democrats -- terming them "vicious."
Hegseth
swished around with a severe case of JPS. If someone in the hall had a
Q-tip, they could have helped him out. Instead, video shows him
anxious and presenting throughout the event. Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali (REUTERS) note, "U.S.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assailed what he called 'decades of
decay' caused by policies promoting diversity and inclusion in the U.S.
military at an unprecedented gathering of military leaders near
Washington on Tuesday." The heavily made up girls -- Chump and Pete --
explained that, immediately after WWII ended, the DoD went into decay.
Take that WWII veterans, you so-called Greatest Generation. That's when
you ascended into leadership. Take that those of you who fought in the
Korean War and those of you who fought in the Vietnam War and fought
all the way up to the Iraq War. You bunch of woke fancy nancys.
That
is what Never Served Chump and Boobalicious Hegseth were saying. In
fact, if Pete gets any more breasty, they're going to need put him in a
bra. Maybe even milk him. Even so, Hegseth insisted, "It's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon." Pete likes his men in uniform like he likes them in bed -- mean and lean.
Could
someone ask Senator Joni Ernst how she feels about the claim of new
physical standards for the military ("male benchmarks only")? Or about
Pete abolishing the 74-year-old panel entitled the Defense
Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS)? Twenty-three
years of military service and Joni abandoned women to support Pete for
Secretary of Defense (that remains his title). What a backstabber, what
a bitch. He harassed women and he had to pay off a woman he is said to
have assaulted. But to Joni Ernst, Pete was irresistible.
Remember,
Joni, we're all going to die. But we're not all going to be missed.
And your actions have ensured that you will never be missed.
What
else to note? Pete's new 'fresh look' facial make up -- make up that
now may his teeth look discolored and Chump always looks like an idiot
when they use a curling iron on his head. We should all grasp that we
are now on the hook for millions because Miss Pete wanted to do his fitness and grooming salon face-to-face instead of via ZOOM. Ahead of the meeting Senators Mazie Hirano and Tammy Duckworth:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Ahead of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s abrupt, needless, and wasteful speech
to much of our nation’s top military leadership tomorrow, September 30,
U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL),
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), pressed the
Secretary on the serious risks that such a gathering poses to
security—on top of the monstrous cost to American taxpayers as
Republicans march us toward a government shutdown.
Emphasizing the impacts this meeting could have on security, the Senators wrote, “If
reports are accurate, this gathering would represent an unprecedented
concentration of senior military leadership in one location simply to
hear you speak about standards and ethos at significant cost and with
potentially serious security implications. This includes both the
personal security of all individuals assembling—and creating a rich
target for any malign actor—and national security, given that our
adversaries will know that many of our most senior commanders from
around the world are tied up together with some portion of the highest
level of the civilian chain of command.”
In their letter, the senators requested a briefing or detailed
written answers to over a dozen questions, including what these
additional flights, hotel rooms, and other expenses will cost taxpayers,
as well as what impacts this meeting will have on operations around the
globe in the absence of senior leadership, and more.
The Senators continued: “For an administration obsessed with
rooting out waste, this abrupt, time and resource-intensive meeting of
our military’s top commanders, all of whom have earned their positions
through superior performance over decades of service, to reportedly hear
you, the least qualified Secretary of Defense in living memory, lecture
about military standards and warfighting is absurd.”
The full text of the letter is available here and below.
Secretary Hegseth:
Recent reporting that you intend to convene commanders in grade
O7 through O10 and their senior enlisted advisors from around the world
for an in-person meeting at Marine Corps Base Quantico next week—on
short notice, supposedly to hear you make a speech about the “warrior
ethos”—raises profound concerns about security, cost and operational
impacts. It comes amid a pattern of deeply troubling decisions under
your tenure, including continued abuse of the military in American
cities for political purposes; the abrupt removal of highly qualified
senior leaders without justification, sometimes at the behest of a
far-right social media influencer and conspiracy theorist; and your own
humiliating mishandling of classified operational information in
unclassified, unsecured group chats with your wife, brother and,
stunningly, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic.
If reports are accurate, this gathering would represent an
unprecedented concentration of senior military leadership in one
location simply to hear you speak about standards and ethos at
significant cost and with potentially serious security implications.
This includes both the personal security of all individuals
assembling—and creating a rich target for any malign actor—and national
security, given that our adversaries will know that many of our most
senior commanders from around the world are tied up together with some
portion of the highest level of the civilian chain of command.
Very few commanders at the specified grades are stationed in the
National Capital Region, meaning that this order could potentially
require over 1,000 uniformed servicemembers, between commanders, their
senior enlisted advisors and support staff, to travel at the taxpayer’s
expense, interrupting their planned duties in their areas of
responsibility. For an administration obsessed with rooting out waste,
this abrupt, time and resource-intensive meeting of our military’s top
commanders, all of whom have earned their positions through superior
performance over decades of service, to reportedly hear you, the least
qualified Secretary of Defense in living memory, lecture about military
standards and warfighting is absurd.
To our knowledge, no Secretary of Defense in modern history has
convened an in-person gathering of this scale, involving general and
flag officer commanders worldwide, without a publicly stated agenda or
declared crisis. Even during periods of acute national emergency, such
as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Gulf War or the immediate aftermath of
the September 11 attacks, senior military leaders were summoned only in
smaller, mission-specific groups, and always with a clear operational or
strategic purpose. Regularly scheduled events such as the Unified
Commanders Conference involve far fewer participants, are planned well
in advance and are conducted with a defined, operational purpose and
full transparency. The reported Quantico meeting departs dramatically
from these precedents.
Given the exceedingly costly nature of this meeting and our lack
of confidence in your judgement when it comes to operational security on
account of your well-publicized failures in this regard, we require
detailed responses to the following questions:
What is the estimated total cost of this gathering, including:
Estimated number of flight hours required for military aircraft, fixed wing and rotary wing, and the cost per flight hour;
Estimated number of commercial roundtrip airline tickets
required for commanders, senior enlisted advisors and support staff and
the estimated total cost of commercial airfare;
Estimated number of hotel rooms required and estimated total
lodging costs for all travelers, including commanders, senior enlisted
advisors and support staff;
Estimated total per diem for all travelers, including commanders, senior enlisted advisors and support staff;
Estimated total cost of ground transportation, to include rental and contract vehicles, fuel and mileage reimbursements;
Estimated total cost of extra security measures required at
Marine Corps Base Quantico and throughout the wider National Capital
Region.
What accounts are being used to fund these costs?
If there is a lapse in annual appropriations starting at
midnight the night of this meeting, how will it impact meeting
participants’ ability to return to their duty stations?
Was a cost-benefit analysis conducted prior to deciding on an in-person format?
Why was a secure virtual alternative not considered sufficient?
Is public reporting that the purpose of this meeting is to
deliver a speech accurate? Are there any other objectives planned for
this meeting?
What force protection measures are being implemented at Marine Corps Base Quantico during the meeting?
Has the Department conducted a risk assessment of concentrating much of the operational chain of command in one location?
What contingency plans are in place in the event of a security breach during the meeting?
Has the Department coordinated with the intelligence community
to assess risks to the senior leadership gathering or broader national
security?
What is the impact on command and control in each combatant command during the absence of its senior leadership?
Are there any ongoing or anticipated operations that could be affected by this absence?
What are the anticipated impacts to personnel and operations at
Marine Corps Base Quantico in preparation for this meeting, on the day
of this meeting and following the conclusion of the meeting?
What installation resources are being used in support of this meeting?
How many installation personnel are being detailed to support this meeting?
How many personnel are being directed to not report to their duty station on the day of the meeting?
What restrictions are being placed on families or individuals living on base and how are base services impacted?
What are the anticipated impacts to personnel and operations at
other installations in the National Capital Region in preparation for
this meeting, on the day of this meeting and following the conclusion of
the meeting? For each impacted installation, detail:
What installation resources are being used in support of this meeting?
How many installation personnel are being detailed to support this meeting?
Has this gathering disrupted any other scheduled operations, training or interagency coordination?
Why has the Department not publicly disclosed the purpose of this meeting?
Has the President directed this gathering? If not, was the
President briefed on or otherwise aware of the gathering before it was
reported?
Has any previous Secretary of Defense convened a similar gathering under comparable circumstances?
How does the Department justify the urgency of this meeting in the absence of a declared crisis?
Secretary Hegseth, we write with particular concern on account of
your consistent prioritization of political theater and distraction
over warfighting and blatant disregard for operational security. Given
the reported scale and sensitivity of this reported gathering, we
require a briefing or written response to answer these questions no
later than Monday September 29, 2025. If any of the information
requested is classified, we are prepared to receive a briefing in an
appropriate setting.
Here's some video coverage of Chump and Pete's massive waste of tax payer money.
As
we wind down, remember that the Republicans control the White House,
the House of Representatives and the Senate. Yet we are now in a
government shut down. Negotiations apparently don't exist in THE ART OF
THE DEAL despite the fact that no deal takes place without negotiatons.
Senator Adam Schiff notes what's going on in the video below.
We caught up with Senator Ed Markey Tuesday to hear his thoughts on this
possible shutdown. He said that besides this negatively affecting the
labor market, a potential shutdown puts the healthcare of hundreds of
thousands of Massachusetts residents at risk: “325,000 Massachusetts
residents are going to lose their health insurance. 337,000
Massachusetts residents are going to see their premiums or healthcare
dramatically skyrocket. So, we are looking at 660,000 people in
Massachusetts either losing their healthcare or seeing it be
dramatically increased in cost.”
democrats
are standing up. they are refusing to let donald chump rob us of
healthcare. we need to be sure that our reps know we are with them in
this fight.
Very
well said by Rebecca. Don't let the liars rewrite what's going down or
why it's going down. Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty
Murray's office:
Murray: “People are about to get completely
priced out of their coverage and Republicans are sitting on their hands.
Worse than that, they are reveling in this shutdown.”
***ICYMI:
New Kaiser Family Foundation analysis finds premiums on the ACA
marketplaces will, on average, more than double next year if Republicans
refuse to act***
***WATCH AND DOWNLOAD:Senator Murray’s remarks after Senate rejects funding bills***
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray
(D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, spoke
alongside Senate Democratic leadership after two votes failed on:
Republicans’ partisan continuing resolution and Democrats’ bill to fund the government, address the health care crisis, and protect Congress’ power of the purse.
Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:
“We have been calling for Republicans to work with us
to keep the government funded, to address the health care crisis they
created, and to stop people’s premiums from skyrocketing. Republicans
haven’t just stuck their heads in the sand, they’ve outright refused to
get serious about a solution.
“Well, health care rates for next year are being finalized right now.
Rate hikes will be in the mail any day. Open enrollment is weeks away.
“And still, Republicans have refused to lift a finger to prevent millions of families from being hit with massive costs.
“Well, Republicans may be forcing the government to shut down
before they so much as talk about health care, but they will not shut
down the debate. And they will not shut out the voices of families who
want action before their monthly health care payments more than double.
“One family in Washington state is about to see their monthly premium
jump from $278 a month, to $1,800 dollars a month, because of
Republicans’ inaction. That is what’s at stake. That is the problem
Republicans refuse to solve. And that is what they have to answer for.
“This has been a problem for months. Why hasn’t Republican Leadership joined us at the table? We’ve been here all year!
“Why do Republicans prefer to shut down the government over talking
about how we save families from astronomical health care price hikes?
“I mean, do Republicans care about farmers? They tell us they do!
Because a quarter of our farmers are enrolled in those health care
exchanges.
“Republicans say they care about small business owners and employees.
Do they care about people who are self-employed? Because nearly half of
them get their health care on the exchanges.
“Do Republicans care if their constituents lose their health care?
Because some of the areas that most rely on the health care tax credits
to afford coverage are represented by Republicans.
“Don’t tell us to wait. Don’t tell us to wait—families have already
been waiting, and we’ve been at the table ready to solve this for
months. Don’t tell us you want to fix this later—later is too late. The
health care clock has all but run out.
“If Republicans refuse to act, families are going to pay the
price. It will cost millions of people hundreds—if not thousands—of
dollars a month. In some cases, it will cost them their health care
insurance entirely. People are about to get completely priced out of
their coverage and Republicans are sitting on their hands.
“And worse than that, they are reveling in this shutdown.
“Trump just said, ‘a lot of good can come down from shutdowns.’ He
said ‘you can get rid of a lot of things we didn’t want. They’d be
Democrat things.’
“Trump doesn’t want to lift a finger to stop health care
premiums from more than doubling, but he is raring to go when it comes
to firing whoever he wants to, or slashing whatever he wants to, or
prosecuting whoever he wants to, or telling his military his opponents
are ‘enemies within,’ and tweeting AI nonsense and lying about whatever
he wants to.
“Trump doesn’t care about how this shutdown is going to hurt
real, average Americans across this country. He doesn’t care about the
Republican health care crisis. He clearly thinks this is all a game.
“Democrats know better. The stakes for American families are real.
“When people get priced out of their health care, they put off their
basic care, they skimp on their prescriptions, they miss out on
lifesaving treatments.
“We are not going to let Republicans dodge this subject. And we’re
not going to let them delay this action on an empty promise or a pig in a
poke.
“We’re going to keep calling on them to sit down, work with us to keep the government open, and solve this health care crisis.”
A
top-ranking Republican senator compared Donald Trump to a playful
“little boy” as he tried to defend a crude AI video posted by the
president in a shutdown standoff with Democrats.
“Couldn’t
the president just say, ‘These demands are ridiculous,’ and not post a
video with Hakeem Jeffries wearing a sombrero, and you know, putting
that voice over Senator Schumer talking about people of color and
immigrants?” CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins put it to Sen. Roger Marshall on
Monday evening.
Trump had posted the clip to Truth
Social following an unproductive White House sit-down with Jeffries and
Chuck Schumer, who lead the Democratic minorities in the House and
Senate. The clip featured Jeffries sporting a traditional Mexican hat
and moustache as mariachi music plays in the background, while an AI dub
of Schumer boasts about handing “illegal aliens free health care.”
Roger
Marshall is a 65 y.o. man. Reminder, Chump is 79. He is not a little
boy. He's the president of the United States. Shame on con artist
Roger Marshall for excusing it. He has no decency. He's a piece of
s**t. And if he doesn't like being called that, he shouldn't excuse
away a video where Chump called every Democrat a piece of s**t.
They'll tell any lie. They are no better than Chump. They have decided to stop serving the American people in order to lick the boots of Donald Chump.
Tuesday, September 30, 2025. The shutdown the White House has wanted
since February looms, Chump's dementia becomes more obvious to the
country, Senator Chris Murphy is among the strong voices explaining why
this isn't a go-along to get-along moment, and much more.
Let's start with Ben and MEIDASTOUCH NEWS.
The
jack-booted thugs -- Governor JB Pritzker is correct -- shots at US
citizens. If a police officer did that, they'd be facing charges. They
shove a US citizen to the ground. There is no oversight here and these
goons aren't even trained. Kristi and Chump have given them free reign
to terrorize people.
Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker once again used his bully pulpit to rebuke President Trump after federal agents marched through downtown Chicago, kidnapped people, shot a pepper ball (essentially a paintball full of pepper spray) at a journalist’s vehicle, and fired tear gas at peaceful protesters.
“In
any other country, if federal agents fired upon journalists and
protesters, when unprovoked, what would we call it? If federal agents
marched down busy streets, harassing civilians and demanding their
papers, what would we say? I don’t think we’d have any trouble calling
it what it is: authoritarianism,” Pritzker said at a press conference Monday afternoon. “So let’s not pretend it’s something else when it happens in our American cities.”
This weekend, there was a surge in federal immigration
enforcement in Chicago as armed agents patrolled the city. Pritzker on
Monday said that Trump is also planning to deploy 100 military troops to Illinois.
Let's turn to the public e-mail account (common_ills@yahoo.com). "You never held Joe accountable for
anything! And you let him get away with defending Hunter when he was
president!" So whines an e-mail from a deranged man. I have held every
occupant of the Oval Office accountable in the time this site has been
up. When Barack Obama opened his mouth and shouldn't -- stating Chelsea
Manning was guilty when he was president earned a reprimand, it earned
one for Joe when he would say something about his son and it also earned
two reprimands for Jill Biden -- my goal here was to never have to
mention Jill. I like Jill and have known her for years. During the
eight years she was Second Lady, I broke that rule only once -- a
snapshot where I noted a column she and Michelle co-wrote on veterans
and, in the same column, noted that veterans who met with Jill were
impressed with her. When she was First Lady, I called her out twice for
speaking of Hunter's guilt or innocence. I stated she was his mother
(step-mother but Hunted really was raised by her) and she could talk
about her love for him or other things but she should stay away from
guilt or innocence due to being married to the president (who needed to
stay away from guilt or innocence because he was the president). I
actually, despite the e-mailers belief otherwise, haven't weighed in on
Chump's remarks re: Comey. He's noted in the Friday snapshot and he's
noted in a Sunday post. That's really all I have written about James
Comey being indicted.
But Chump should have kept his mouth shut. He didn't. And now he could pay for that. Devan Cole (CNN) has an article
on this -- how Chump's words could help Comey. He doesn't think it
will be successful and explains why. I disagree. I think it could be
very successful. I think Cole's thinking of lower level officials. The
office of the President of the United States is the highest office in
the land. Therefore, actions and words from whomever's holding that
office matter more in terms of court proceedings. When it's the words
of the president, which jurisdiction do you move to?
That's
not a huge issue to me -- and Cole may be correct in his take. What's
more of an issue to me is thinking about when I've sued someone. And I
always win because I understand what it takes to win. But lose or win,
it takes time. And that's my huge issue. When Paula Jones brought a
lawsuit against Bill Clinton, before it was allowed to proceed, we had
hearings regarding whether it could be brought immediately while Bill
was a sitting president. Did we all forget that?
They pondered it and said sure.
That was one case.
If five Paula Joneses had wanted to sue, would the verdict be the same?
What
I'm getting at is that Chump is doing an awful job and is elderly and
staying up to all hours due to his late night urination cycle and social media posting. Who's signing
off on these personal law suits? When he's suing CBS or NYT or
whomever, shouldn't he have to go before a court -- the same as Paula
Jones -- to argue that he should be allowed to sue while he's a sitting
president?
How does he have time to sue as a sitting president. And to be so litigious with so many lawsuits?
He doesn't. That's why so many things are falling apart because he won't do the job he was elected to.
And
if we worry -- and I do -- about a president's ability to influence
judicial outcomes -- the whole reason behind the statement "I'm not
going to comment on an ongoing investigation" -- why are we not
concerned about juries being influenced by a sitting president bringing
the law suit?
As soon as
possible, Congress needs to pass a law regarding lawsuits during a
presidency. Chump has spent far too much time suing and threatening to
sue. There might need to be a moratorium on lawsuits brought by a
sitting president when the president is the plaintiff.
So that's something I think we need to do as Democrats. How about you?
The reason I ask is that John Gallagher (LGBTQ NATION) reports on how hugely unpopular Donald Chump is. He also notes that the Democrats aren't all that popular as a body either.
I've
shared before my belief that some of that is frustration over Dems not
having control of the White House or either house in Congress. But note
this from Gallagher:
Democrats
are also faltering on issues because they have been choosing to avoid
topics instead of trying to reshape the debate around them. Nowhere is
that truer than when it comes to trans rights issues. Polls show that a
significant number of voters think that the party is too focused on
trans issues at the expense of economic issues. That’s because the party
failed to push back hard enough on Republican attacks on trans people.
How hard is it to say that the GOP is attacking parental rights by going
after trans kids? Apparently, it’s very hard for Democrats.
Instead,
you have Democrats who want to abandon principles because that’s easier
than coming up with a new approach to issues. Would-be presidential
candidate Gavin Newsom happily threw trans people under the bus in an
interview with, of all people, Charlie Kirk. New York Times columnist
Ezra Klein floated the idea that Democrats should run anti-abortion
candidates in red states, even though pro-abortion initiatives have won
on the ballot in red states.
Rebuilding a party
isn’t easy. Rethinking how to keep your principles while navigating a
changing electorate is incredibly hard. But thinking that you can win
elections simply because the other guy is doing a bad job isn’t going to
work for the Democrats.
Right now, the electorate is unhappy with both parties. Relying on them to be unhappier with your opponent is a lousy strategy.
The
polls are telling Democrats they need to be something other than what
they were. Unless the party can rise to the challenge, Trump will
maintain the advantage of incumbency and all the power it grants him,
plus the power that he seizes.
Dems are not in control of one house of Congress at present -- let alone both. But what if we were?
As
a party, we can certainly talk about what we would do. Right now, we
can talk about that. I want a strong series of reforms -- such as took
place after Watergate -- that will protect the democracy so that it can
never be threatened by another madman the way it is today. I want more
than that as well. To build a better world, we need to see a better
world. And maybe if we could put some time into that and see what idea
we could agree on, we could stop feeling are leaders are powerless. We
do have power. -- even now we do.
If
we didn't have power, Jimmy Kimmel wouldn't be back on ABC. You forced
that. You made that happen. And I don't think you get how big it is.
Possibly because too many 'informed voices' weren't informed at all.
This has never happened before. A show that a large number of
affiliates were not going to broadcast got brought back. Never, ever
has that happened. Don't give me HILL STREET BLUES, CAGNEY AND LACEY, et
al saved by a letter writing campaign. Those were low rated shows at
one point. They were not shows that the affiliates refused to air.
There are about 238 stations across the US broadcasting ABC content
(some put the figure at 250 -- we're going with the lower number because
that's the number that broadcasts all ABC content). 72 stations were
saying that they wouldn't broadcast Jimmy's show (that's the number of
SINCLAIR and NEXSTAR affiliates that broadcast ABC content). You made
that happen and it has never happened before.
We have more power than we know and more power than we ever attempt to utilize.
Democratic
senators increasingly see shutting down the government to send a
message to President Trump as a political necessity, Democratic aides
and strategists say.
These
frustrated Democrats think they need to do something drastic to push
back on the Trump administration and buck up their own demoralized
voters — and the looming Sept. 30 government funding deadline may be one
of their best remaining chances.
Senate
Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) thinks the hard-line Democratic
strategy is starting to pay off after Trump agreed to meet with
Democratic leaders at the White House on Monday, something the president
had previously refused to do.
“We’ve been
resolute that we need a meeting, that we need a real negotiation, that
you don’t do this by one party putting together a completely partisan
bill and saying, ‘Take it or leave it.’ So, they felt the heat,” Schumer
told NBC’s “Meet the Press” in an interview Sunday.
He
warned that if Trump uses the meeting to score political points,
Democrats would again defeat a House-passed government funding bill that
needs to pass by Tuesday to avoid a shutdown.
"Shut
out? Shut down!" That should be the motto. It happened because Dems
-- and the citizens they represent -- were shut out of the process.
There
are 214 elected Dems to the Republicans 219. That's a lot of members
being shut out and that's a lot of Americans who they represent that
aren't getting a voice in the so-called people's house. Let's not
forget that the number is technically 213. Why? Because Speaker of the
Closet Mike Johnson refuses to seat Adelita Grijalva. She was
elected on Tuesday of last week. He won't seat her. He's afraid she'd
become the last needed signature on the Epstein petition. Steve Benen (MADDOW BLOG, MSNBC) notes:
Democrat
Adelita Grijalva cruised to a landslide victory last week, winning her
congressional special election by roughly 40 points. Once sworn in,
she’ll be Arizona’s first-ever Latina congresswoman, succeeding her
father, the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva, and she’ll narrow the GOP majority
in the U.S. House: Republicans will hold 219 seats to the Democrats’
214, with two vacancies remaining.
What’s more,
upon arriving on Capitol Hill, she’s also said she intends to sign a
pending discharge petition to force disclosure of the Jeffrey Epstein
files, currently being held back by Donald Trump’s Justice Department.
Proponents of the effort are currently one member short of 218
signatures, but Grijalva’s support would trigger a process House Speaker
Mike Johnson would be largely powerless to stop.
All
the Arizonan has to do is wait for the chamber to return from its
current break, at which point she can take the oath of office. With that
outcome hanging in the balance, The Arizona Republic reported:
Democrat
Adelita Grijalva has for months been on a glide path to become
Arizona’s next member of Congress. But now that she’s been elected, as
the U.S. House stares down a government funding standoff and a bombshell
measure related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a political
fight is brewing around when exactly Grijalva will be sworn in.
At the heart of the matter is a question about how best to deal with routine electoral bureaucracy.
In
theory, Grijalva could be sworn in as Congress’ newest member on Oct.
7, the day members get back to work. This would be consistent with
standard practice, including recent developments with Democratic Rep.
James Walkinshaw of Virginia, who was declared the unofficial winner of
his special election and was sworn days later.
But
there are growing concerns that Republican leaders in the chamber will
try to delay Grijalva’s swearing in until officials in Arizona certify
the special election results — which, again, were not close — weeks
later.
He needs to seat her.
She needs to be sworn in. He is spitting on the US citizens living in
her district. Failure to do so is taxation without representation --
the rally cry of the Revolutionary War.
Last night on his MSNBC show, Lawrence O'Donnell spoke with the House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Lawrence
rightly notes Chump's continued cognitive decline. This gets worse
with every day. And during all of this, the Crooked Supreme Court keeps
tearing down the separation of powers that the Founding Fathers valued
so much to give this dementia plagued person more and more powers. The
Supreme Court has betrayed the country, the Constitution and our
democratic system. They have the same eyes and ears the rest of us do
-- those six crooks sitting on the Court and repeatedly trashing the law
-- trashing established law -- to hand more and more powers to Chump.
Imagine
being federal judge trying to uphold the Constitution and watching the
Crooked Supreme Court overturn you over and over and over?
And
what the Supreme Court's not trying to destroy, Republicans in the US
Congress are. Let's note this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray
(D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, spoke on the
Senate floor ahead of a vote Senate Republicans teed up on a bill
introduced by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) that would indefinitely extend
an automatic 14-day continuing resolution (CR) in the event of a lapse
in appropriations.
Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:
“This bill has a nice-sounding name, but that’s about the
only good thing you can say about it, because what it really does is
hand over Congress’ power of the purse to Donald Trump and Russ Vought.
“If this bill passes, it won’t just be Democrats’ voice in funding
that gets squashed; Republicans will be cutting themselves out of
funding decisions.
“Because this bill extends government funding indefinitely, so Donald
Trump and Russ Vought never have to worry about Congress again.
“If this bill were to pass, Trump could quite literally
refuse to sign any funding bill, even a bipartisan bill, unless it met
all of his demands, and Congress would then have to override his veto
with a two-thirds vote in both chambers if we ever wanted to get off the
forever CR that this bill would put in place. No way.
“There’s a very simple way to avert a shutdown. It starts
with Republicans working with Democrats to hammer out a solution. It’s
time to do that.
Talks at the White House on Monday aimed at preventing a government shutdown left both sides far apart on a deal. Earlier in the day, reports emerged that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would consider
a ten-day extension of government funding if Trump agreed to negotiate
on enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the
year.
Reaction to this was swift. “You don’t pick a fight and then run
away,” said Emma Lydon, managing director of P Street, the government
relations arm of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Within a
couple of hours, Schumer told reporters that he would not back a
short-term funding agreement under any circumstances. But one bigger
problem with the conversation around government funding, with less than
24 hours to the deadline, is the nature of the fight being picked.
The negotiations and debates are operating under the premise that
appropriations to federal agencies are flowing today and will stop
flowing tomorrow, and that this is something political leaders want to
avoid. It’s hard to uncover any evidence that this is truly the case.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling
definitively allows the Trump administration to cancel whatever funding
they disfavor within 45 days of the end of the appropriation, without
any approval from Congress. The administration now has power, formalized
by the Court in a sleight-of-hand move by claiming nobody has standing
to sue, to cut whatever they want out of the budget, at a time when they
are pressuring Congress to send them a budget.
That Supreme Court ruling involved $4 billion in foreign aid funding
that the administration semi-formally tried to rescind; it doesn’t
include the $410 billion that the White House has simply withheld from programs across the country. That represents close to half of all outlays
in the fiscal year 2025 nondefense discretionary budget, which have
simply vanished, perhaps permanently after the last day of the fiscal
year, which is today. The Office of Management and Budget, as Rep. Rosa
DeLauro (D-CT) has explained, has offered no explanation of how money is being spent or where withheld spending is going.
About 12 percent of the federal workforce has been terminated. Last week, we heard threats from OMB director Russ Vought that a shutdown will really allow the Office of Management and Budget to fire workers. A shutdown provides no actual legal authority
to fire federal employees, but then again there was no legal authority
to rescind or withhold appropriated spending without congressional
approval, or put workers on extended administrative leave, as they did
with the unauthorized buyout back in January.
As Daniel Schuman points out, Vought presented guidance to agencies in February that they should prepare for mass layoffs by today,
September 30. Any allegedly shutdown-induced “mass layoff” should be
seen as the continuation of an existing plan that has been public for
seven months.
They've
planned it and they own it. But they lie about Democrats and try to
blame them. Democrats are fighting for We The People on this. No one's
made that more clear than Senator Chris Murphy:
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)
on Monday took to the floor of the U.S. Senate ahead of Tuesday’s
government funding deadline, arguing that amidst President Trump’s
authoritarian use of the federal government to suppress political
speech, prosecute political enemies, and send in the military to
Democrat-run cities, any budget agreement must include safeguards for
our democracy and guarantees that President Trump won’t lawlessly ignore
budget provisions he doesn’t like. Murphy also called for a
postponement of health care premium increases that will substantially
raise costs for millions of working families.
Murphy emphasized the Senate should not support a budget
which will fund President Trump’s increasingly aggressive assault on
American democracy: “To me this is simple. We should not
willingly pay the bills for the most serious assault on political
freedom since the Civil War - an assault that may collapse American
democracy as we know it… The majority party has an obligation to honor
and fight for a basic set of protections for our democracy. And when it
doesn’t, it really stops being a good faith negotiating partner.”
He continued: “If we are going to keep the
government open, why can’t we all agree that it should only be a
government that respects our democracy, that is not corrupt, that
doesn’t treat people and places that oppose President Trump as enemies,
deserving of indictment or military deployment? That also seems like a
pretty minimalist ask.”
Murphy demanded Trump stop weaponizing the federal government
against his political enemies and illegally impounding duly
appropriated funds: “Stop the deployment to our cities. Stop
the witch hunt of Comey and Soros and Senator Schiff. Stop using the FCC
to censor speech. Stop unconstitutionally ignoring the budget and
spending only money that the President wants to spend.”
Murphy called out his Republican colleagues for enabling President Trump’s lawlessness:
“My Republican colleagues know why Comey and Senator Schiff and Soros
are being targeted. They know that the President just picked the people
that give him the hardest time and told his folks to come up with
charges. My Republican colleagues know the impact that this has on
people who want to politically and peacefully oppose the President, but
now won’t do that because they fear for their freedom. Republicans know
this. They should not defend it… And Republicans know that using the FCC
to crack down on speech that the President doesn’t agree with is wrong.
They know, as Senator Cruz pointed out, that that’s a slippery slope
that we may never get off.”
Murphy blamed Republicans for the coming shutdown, highlighting their inaction and refusal to negotiate with Democrats:
“The Republican House of Representatives isn’t here. And they aren’t
coming back until the government has been shut down, reportedly for
days. That tells you all you need to know about who is responsible for a
potential shutdown of the government... President Trump doesn’t care
either. He boycotted even meeting with Democrats until 24 hours before
the shutdown was to begin. He was watching golf or posting on social
media - basically anything except trying to negotiate, to do the job of
government.”
Murphy concluded: “It’s decision time. Is this
Senate going to fund the destruction of our democracy? Or are we going
to do what’s necessary to stand up for basic American values?”
A transcript of Murphy’s full remarks is available below.
The House of Representatives is not coming back into session
reportedly until next week. The government is shutting down tomorrow
night and the Republican House of Representatives isn’t here. And they
aren’t coming back until the government has been shut down, reportedly
for days.
That tells you all you need to know about who is responsible for a
potential shutdown of the government. Republicans care so little about
funding the government that they aren’t even showing up.
President Trump doesn’t care either. He boycotted even meeting
with Democrats until 24 hours before the shutdown was to begin. He was
watching golf or posting on social media - basically anything except
trying to negotiate, to do the job of government.
I wish Republicans were trying to keep the government open, instead of trying to shut it down.
But what I really want is for Republicans to open their eyes and
see what is happening at an increasing pace to our democracy. What I
want - what I think is necessary at this moment - is for any budget that
we write to put the health of our democracy first.
In fact, as I’ve watched the events of the past few weeks play
out - with political enemies being systematically hunted by this
administration - I think that we all have a moral obligation to only
support a budget that at the very least puts the brakes on the
President’s lawlessness.
Right now, our democracy is in grave peril. And there is no
better example of this than the events that played out last week over
the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. The President has
made it clear that he wants to put his political enemies in jail as
retribution for the charges brought against him. He does not care about
whether there are grounds for these charges. He just wants charges.
And so he instructed Erik Siebert, the U.S. Attorney in Virginia,
a Republican, to bring charges against James Comey. But Siebert refused
for a simple reason. There was no evidence that James Comey had done
anything illegal. So Trump fired Siebert. He appointed his personal
lawyer - who has never set foot in a courtroom - as the new U.S.
Attorney, simply because he knew she would follow orders.
Every career prosecutor in the office recommended she refuse to
bring the charges - again, because there were no charges to be brought.
But she did it anyways, as instructed. Not a single other lawyer in the
office would sign the indictment - virtually unprecedented in a case
like this.
Trump cheered the indictment, and then he warned that there would
be more charges brought against others that had vocally opposed his
policies.
And that’s not all that happened in the last two weeks. Trump
ordered the FCC to issue threats to TV stations that did not remove one
of his primary late night critics, Jimmy Kimmel, from the airwaves. He
announced new military deployments to additional cities. He began a
process to harass and arrest leaders of prominent political groups that
oppose his presidency, threatening at least one funder of groups that
oppose his policies, George Soros, with arrest, simply for supporting
opposition to Trump.
Much of this - though not of all it - has happened in the wake of
the brutal, horrific murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. His
assasistation was abhorrent. And it was, and still is, a moment for all
of us to consider what we can do to stamp out political violence and
violence of all kinds.
But his murder does not justify the dizzying campaign of
political repression that has been carried out often in his name since.
To exploit his murder to crush dissent or to censor speech is
unacceptable.
And this brings me back to the debate over the expiring budget.
I join with my colleagues in wanting this new budget to, at the
very least, postpone the health care insurance increases that are coming
for millions of Americans, that are going to ruin people’s lives in
this country. 75 percent increases for people that are going to make
this awful decision about whether they should continue to pay their
premiums, whether they should put food on the table for their kids, or
whether they should risk going without insurance. I think that’s a
pretty reasonable ask - just don’t increase costs on families when it
comes to health care, at a time when the cost of everything else is
going up because of President Trump’s insane economic policies.
But let me ask you this as well:
Why would we not also simply say that any budget we pass should
stop the worst of the lawlessness? Stop the deployment to our cities.
Stop the witch hunt of Comey and Soros and Senator Schiff. Stop using
the FCC to censor speech. Stop unconstitutionally ignoring the budget,
and spending only money that the President wants to spend.
To me this is simple. We should not willingly pay the bills for
the most serious assault on political freedom since the Civil War - an
assault that may collapse American democracy as we know it.
I know my Republican friends think that this is hyperbole. That our fear for democracy is just fear mongering, just politics.
I swear it is not. My Republican colleagues know why Comey and
Senator Schiff and Soros are being targeted. They know that the
President just picked the people that give him the hardest time, and
told his folks to come up with charges. My Republican colleagues know
the impact that this has on people who want to politically and
peacefully oppose the President, but now won’t do that because they fear
for their freedom. Republicans know this. They should not defend it.
Republicans know that it’s wrong to sit down and agree to a
budget and then cheer the President when he refuses to spend the money
in blue states or on the priorities that got Democrats to sit down at
the table to begin with. Republicans know that that’s not fair play.
They shouldn’t defend it.
And Republicans know that using the FCC to crack down on speech
that the President doesn’t agree with is wrong. They know, as Senator
Cruz pointed out, that that’s a slippery slope that we may never get
off.
I want to find agreement with Republicans on stopping these
premiums from going up. I do. I think that’s really important for people
in this country.
And I think it’s okay to admit that this is an odd arrangement
that we have in American government today, where the minority party in
the Senate, so long as it has 40 members, is kind of in a coalition
government with the majority party, because the budget can’t pass
without bipartisan agreement.
But the majority party has an obligation to honor and fight for a
basic set of protections for our democracy. And when it doesn’t, it
really stops being a good faith negotiating partner.
How do Republicans expect us to vote for a budget that funds a
government that is lawlessly pursuing Democrats, that is arresting and
harassing our members and our allies? That’s deploying the army and
masked officers to our cities?
We are at a moment of decision for this country. Right now,
Republicans aren’t even trying to keep the government open. They’re not
even here. They’re rooting for a shut down.
But if we are going to keep the government open, why can’t we all
agree that it should only be a government that respects our democracy,
that is not corrupt, that doesn’t treat people and places that oppose
President Trump as enemies, deserving of indictment or military
deployment? That also seems like a pretty minimalist ask.
So, it’s decision time. Is this Senate going to fund the
destruction of our democracy? Or are we going to do what is necessary to
stand up for basic American values?
Last
night Lawrence also tackled Chump on social media with a post beneath
the office of the president, a vile post that goes to just how much the
dementia has set in.
Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Schumer;
Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader; Speaker Mike
Johnson; and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader,
came less than 32 hours before the government was slated to shut down,
at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. It marked the first time Mr. Trump hosted the
Democratic leaders at the White House in his second term.
Democratic
leaders characterized the private meeting at the White House as candid
and frank, but said they left without being any closer to a
breakthrough.
On Monday evening, Mr.
Trump seemed to make that possibility more remote. He shared an
A.I.-generated video on Truth Social, mocking Mr. Schumer, Mr. Jeffries
and the Democratic Party by fabricating Mr. Schumer’s voice at a news
conference on Monday afternoon. The video falsely accuses
Democrats of trying to give free health care to undocumented immigrants
to gain their support. In the video, Mr. Jeffries, who is Black, is
pictured with a fake mustache and wearing a sombrero.
Shortly after Trump posted the video, Jeffries wrote on X,
“Bigotry will get you nowhere. Cancel the Cuts. Lower the Cost. Save
Healthcare. We are NOT backing down.”
Schumer followed moments later, commenting on X, “If you
think your shutdown is a joke, it just proves what we all know: You
can’t negotiate. You can only throw tantrums.”