Showing posts sorted by date for query thomas jefferson. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query thomas jefferson. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, March 5, 2025

Trump lies, brags, and tap dances his way through joint speech to Congress, and this line from a journalist sums it up: 'Where were the ideas? There weren't any'

Rep. Al Green voices displeasure with Trump's message (Getty)

A team of New York Times (NYT) reporters covered Donald Trump's joint speech to Congress last night, describing it as "contentious" and conducting an extensive fact check. Both the newspaper's straight reporting and its fact check -- which caught Trump in a number of statements that demonstrated his tortured relationship with the truth -- were included under the headline "Congressional Speech Highlights: Trump Asserts Term Is Off to a ‘Swift and Unrelenting’ Start; President Trump highlighted the many actions his administration has taken in the past six weeks, including drastic cuts to the federal work force and the eradication of diversity initiatives.

What was perhaps the most revealing summary of the evening? It came when Times reporter Tyler Pager wrote in his report: "Where were the new ideas? There weren't any."

The Times begins with a list of takeaways from the speech:

Tyler Pager

Reporting from Washington

Here are six takeaways from Trump’s address to Congress.

Delivering the longest address to Congress in modern presidential history, Mr. Trump reprised many of the themes that animated his campaign for president and spent little time unveiling new policies, as presidents traditionally have done on these occasions. He spoke for roughly one hour 40 minutes.

“We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplish in four years or eight years — and we are just getting started,” he said.

Democrats lodged protests throughout the evening, with one representative getting kicked out and others holding signs in silent opposition. But Mr. Trump argued that it was the Democrats who left him a country besieged by crises and that his administration was working to clean them up.

Here are six takeaways from Mr. Trump’s first address to a joint session of Congress in his second term.

One day after Mr. Trump temporarily suspended the delivery of U.S. military aid to Ukraine, he signaled a willingness to reset the relationship. The president said he appreciated a message from President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, in which he said his country was “ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer.”

The new posture comes days after Mr. Trump’s explosive Oval Office meeting with Mr. Zelensky, which resulted in the Ukrainian leader hastily departing the White House without signing a deal for the United States to have access to Ukraine’s revenue for rare earth minerals. In his message, which was posted on social media on Tuesday, Mr. Zelensky said he was ready to sign the deal, a top priority for Mr. Trump.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Trump also said he had had “serious” discussions with Russia and they have signaled they also are “ready for peace.”

“It’s time to stop this madness,” he said. “It’s time to halt the killing. It’s time to end the senseless war. If you want to end wars, you have to talk to both sides.”

Mr. Trump widened his trade wars on Tuesday when he instituted sweeping tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico and China. Despite the markets’ plunging in response to his actions, Mr. Trump said he would not budge, dismissing the reaction as “a little disturbance.” He said more tariffs would go into effect on April 2.

“Other countries have used tariffs against us for decades, and now it’s our turn to start using them against those other countries,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, said Mr. Trump could announce a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada as soon as Wednesday. But the president made no mention of that in his speech on Tuesday night.

“Whatever they tariff us, other countries, we will tariff them,” he said. “That’s reciprocal, back and forth.”

Within the first few minutes of Mr. Trump’s speech, Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas, stood up and started heckling the president. After Mr. Green ignored multiple warnings from Speaker Mike Johnson, Mr. Johnson ordered the sergeant-at-arms to remove Mr. Green from the chamber.

Mr. Green’s eviction marked the most contentious moment of a combative night, as Democrats organized various protests against the president. Many Democratic lawmakers held up small black signs with phrases that included “Save Medicaid,” “Musk Steals” and “False.” Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan held up a whiteboard that said “Start by paying your own taxes” as Mr. Trump talked about tax cuts. A number of Democrats, including Representatives Maxwell Frost of Florida and Jasmine Crockett of Texas, walked out during Mr. Trump’s speech.

But even as they expressed their dissent, Democrats showed they were still struggling to coalesce around a unified message of opposition to Mr. Trump.

Mr. Musk, the world’s richest man, has overseen the Trump administration’s aggressive effort to overhaul the federal government with sweeping cuts to the work force and contracts. The speed and the scope of Mr. Musk’s work has caught many in Washington off guard, with Democrats accusing him of violating congressional spending authority and civil service protections.

But Mr. Trump made clear on Tuesday that he wholeheartedly supported Mr. Musk’s radical approach.

“He’s working very hard,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Musk, who nodded and beamed in response. “He didn’t need this. He didn’t need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.”

Pointing to Democrats, he said: “Everybody here — even this side appreciates it, I believe. They just don’t want to admit that. Just listen to some of the appalling waste we have already identified.”

The president spent several minutes listing off a wide range of programs Mr. Musk’s team has cut, bragging that the effort had identified “hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud.” But even Mr. Musk’s initiative has claimed to have generated only $105 billion in savings, assertions that have not been verified. The New York Times has found that DOGE has erroneously reported savings based on contracts that had already ended and miscalculated numbers.

Mr. Trump also re-upped his attacks on federal workers, vowing to “reclaim power from this unaccountable bureaucracy.”

“Any federal bureaucrat who resists this change will be removed from office immediately,” he said.

Presidents often use addresses to a joint session of Congress to lay out their agenda for the year ahead. But not Mr. Trump. He did not unveil new policies, and devoted little time to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, both of which Mr. Trump has vowed to end.

Mr. Trump also did not address another time-sensitive issue: how to prevent the government from shutting down next week. Even with Republicans controlling the House and the Senate, there are still disagreements about the best ways to proceed on the funding battle.

The president reiterated that he wanted Congress to allocate more money for immigration enforcement while cutting taxes, but how lawmakers will achieve that remains unclear.

Mr. Trump is always in need of an opponent, and for now, it appears former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is still in his cross hairs. Even after defeating Mr. Biden in November, Mr. Trump mentioned his predecessor’s administration more than a dozen times and called Mr. Biden “the worst president in American history.”

He blamed Mr. Biden for a litany of problems, including the high costs of eggs, crime and drugs flooding across the border, and accused him of being weak on China.

At times, Mr. Trump appeared to be giving one of his stump speeches from the campaign trail, as he railed against Mr. Biden’s immigration policies, support of transgender rights and “wokeness.”

“Wokeness is trouble. Wokeness is bad,” Mr. Trump said, without specifying what exactly he was referring to. “It’s gone. It’s gone.”

Julian E. Barnes

Reporting from Washington

Trump says a man behind the attack on the Kabul airport was captured. 

President Trump announced the capture of a top leader of the Islamic State in Afghanistan and Pakistan who helped plan the 2021 attack on the Kabul airport that killed 13 American service members and dozens of other people.

“We have just apprehended the top terrorist responsible for that atrocity, and he is right now on his way here to face the swift sword of American justice,” Mr. Trump said during his address to Congress on Tuesday.

Current and former officials said the United States had provided intelligence to Pakistan that led to its capture of the leader, Mohmmad Sharifullah, who helped plot the attack on the Abbey Gate entrance to the Kabul airport.

The Abbey Gate attack became a symbol of the chaos of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in the opening months of the Biden administration. The military had been warned about the possibility of terror attacks at the airport, where thousands of Afghans were converging, hoping to flee as the Taliban took hold of the country.

Although he did not name Mr. Biden during his remarks on the attack, Mr. Trump lamented the withdrawal from Afghanistan as “disastrous and incompetent.” He called the Abbey Gate attack “perhaps the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country.”

Since taking office, Mr. Trump’s C.I.A. director, John Ratcliffe, has spoken with Pakistan’s intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Asim Malik, about Mr. Sharifullah, current and former officials said. Mr. Sharifullah is a leader of the group known as Islamic State Khorasan Province, or ISIS-K.

Cliff Sims, an informal adviser to Mr. Ratcliffe, wrote in a social media post that one of Mr. Trump’s first orders to the agency was to prioritize the hunt for those responsible for the Abbey Gate attack.

“On his second day in office, Ratcliffe raised the issue during his first call with the Pakistani spy chief and reiterated it during their meeting at the Munich security conference,” Mr. Sims wrote. “This cooperation led to a huge counterterrorism win for the United States and progress toward justice for the families of the American heroes we lost that day.”

In another social media post, Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, said Mr. Sharifullah had been extradited to the United States. “One step closer to justice for these American heroes and their families,” Mr. Patel wrote.

A U.S. official said that the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. were notified 10 days ago that Pakistan had captured Mr. Sharifullah and that he was expected to arrive in the United States on Wednesday, developments reported earlier by Axios.

Chris Cameron

Reporting from Washington

Trump taps into his instinct for political showmanship in honoring guests during his Capitol address.

Trump Honors a Child Cancer Patient With a Secret Service Badge

During President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress, D.J. Daniel, a 13-year-old who was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2018, was made an honorary agent with the Secret Service.

Joining us in the gallery tonight is a young man who truly loves our police. His name is D.J. Daniel. He is 13 years old and he has always dreamed of becoming a police officer. [crowd cheering] But in 2018, D.J. was diagnosed with brain cancer. The doctors gave him five months at most to live. That was more than six years ago. Tonight, D.J., we’re going to do you the biggest honor of them all. I am asking our new Secret Service director, Sean Curran, to officially make you an agent of the United States Secret Service. [crowd cheering]

During his lengthy address to Congress on Tuesday night, President Trump blended solemn tributes with a flair for showmanship, as he acknowledged guests in the House chamber and showered them with praise.

Devarjaye Daniel, a 13-year-old who was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2018, and was invited to the speech as a guest, came dressed as an officer from the Houston Police Department. Devarjaye, known as D.J. has been on a yearslong quest to be sworn in as an honorary police officer in as many places as possible as he undergoes treatments and surgeries.

Describing D.J. as “a young man who truly loves our police,” Mr. Trump announced that he would give him “the biggest honor of them all,” making him an agent of the U.S. Secret Service.

Sean Curran, the director of the Secret Service, handed D.J. a badge as the audience applauded and chanted his name. D.J. embraced Mr. Curran, and the two exchanged words for a few moments as the crowd cheered.

Another invited guest was Alexis Nungaray, the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray — a 12-year-old girl from Houston who was murdered last year. Mr. Trump acknowledged Ms. Nungaray in his speech, and assailed the Venezuelan migrants charged in her murder as “savages” and “illegal alien monsters.”

Mr. Trump then announced that he had renamed a national wildlife refuge east of Houston in memory of Jocelyn, who he said loved animals and nature.

Mr. Trump also recognized a third guest, Jason Hartley, who Mr. Trump said had descended from generations of military service members. Jason’s father, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, had died, and Mr. Trump said, Jason wanted to carry on the family’s legacy of military service.

“His greatest dream is to attend the U.S. Military Academy at West Point,” Mr. Trump said. “And, Jason, that’s a very big deal getting in. That’s a hard one to get into.”

“But,” Mr. Trump said, “ I’m pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted. You will soon be joining the corps of cadets.”

As the crowd whistled and cheered on Mr. Hartley, D.J., the newly minted Secret Service agent, tapped him on the shoulder and gave him a high-five.

Erica L. Green

White House reporter

A team of Times reporters and editors checked some 26 claims made by President Trump during their speech. Here how accurate they were.

River Akira Davis

Reporting from Tokyo.

Trumps says South Korea and Japan want to invest in an Alaska pipeline.

President Trump said Tuesday that Japan and South Korea have expressed interest in partnering with the United States on a $44 billion plan to produce and export natural gas from Alaska, reviving interest in one of the world’s biggest energy projects.

The project, known as Alaska L.N.G., involves constructing an 800-mile pipeline from fields north of the Arctic Circle to southern Alaska, where the natural gas would be liquefied and shipped to Asia. China and Japan are the world’s two biggest importers of liquefied natural gas.

Because of its high costs and the time required for construction, Alaska L.N.G. has been viewed as a long shot within the industry. For years, major energy companies and officials in Japan and South Korea rebuffed requests from Alaskan delegations to participate, stalling the project’s decades-long progress.

However, under the threat of tariffs from Mr. Trump, officials and executives in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have started exploring ways to invest in Alaska L.N.G. The discussions have included financing for the project’s infrastructure and signing long-term contracts to purchase its gas.

“Japan and South Korea and other nations want to be our partner with investments of trillions of dollars each,” Mr. Trump said on Tuesday during his address to Congress. “It’s all set to go,” he said of the project, which would be one of the largest energy investments in U.S. history.

Mr. Trump promised to boost the production of fossil fuels during his campaign by speeding up the approval of permits and opening up new areas for exploration. Any additional output would push U.S. production beyond already record-high levels. The United States is also the world’s biggest exporter of natural gas.

Mr. Trump did not explain how the project could see trillions of dollars in investment. But the serious consideration in Alaska L.N.G. shows how, just over a month into his presidency, Mr. Trump is already beginning to make potentially lasting marks on the U.S. energy industry.

In his speech, Mr. Trump reiterated his stance on slowing the U.S. transition to renewable energy while revitalizing fossil fuels despite concerns over climate change. “We have more liquid gold under our feet than any nation on earth,” he said. “It’s called drill, baby, drill.”

Venezuela is believed to have the world’s largest oil reserves.

Michael D. Shear and Luke Broadwater

Reporting from Washington

A combative Trump says ‘America is back’ and taunts his political rivals

President Trump vowed not to lift tariffs on America’s biggest trading partners in his first address to Congress on Tuesday, but appeared ready to reduce tensions with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine just days after an Oval Office blowup in which he threatened to abandon a key ally fighting an invasion.

During the 100-minute speech — the longest presidential address to Congress in modern history — Mr. Trump read aloud a message of gratitude that Mr. Zelensky had posted on social media earlier in the day. Mr. Trump said he appreciated the message, and had received “strong signals” from Russia that the country was eager for peace.

“Wouldn’t that be beautiful?” Mr. Trump said.

He was less conciliatory toward Canada, Mexico and China after imposing tariffs earlier in the day that roiled global markets and drew rebukes from the countries’ leaders. The president said nothing in his speech Tuesday night to suggest that an extended trade war might yet be averted.

“Whatever they tariff us, other countries, we will tariff them,” he said. “Whatever they tax us, we will tax them. If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market.”

Together, the president’s remarks underscored the chaotic, whiplash nature of the opening weeks of Mr. Trump’s second term. Much of the lengthy speech was filled with grievances about his treatment by Democrats and exaggerations about his accomplishments. It capped a six-week blitz of actions since Mr. Trump took office, a period in which he has fired government workers, frozen foreign aid, upended international alliances, pardoned rioters and issued a flood of executive orders.

“Six weeks ago, I stood beneath the dome of this Capitol and proclaimed the dawn of the Golden Age of America,” Mr. Trump said, repeatedly appearing to veer from his prepared remarks. “From that moment on, it has been nothing but swift and unrelenting action to usher in the greatest and most successful era in the history of our country.”

From the first moments of his address, Mr. Trump faced heckling from Democrats as he declared that “America is back.” Democrats barely applauded, while Republicans enthusiastically cheered. When Representative Al Green, a Democratic lawmaker from Texas, repeatedly yelled “you don’t have a mandate” and refused to sit down, it exposed the deep divisions in Congress and the country.

“Mr. Green, take your seat,” Speaker Mike Johnson ordered him.

When he refused, he was escorted out.

“The people sitting right here will not clap, will not stand and certainly will not cheer for these astronomical achievements,” Mr. Trump said, striking a note of self-pity that he had not gained acceptance from Democrats in the chamber. “They won’t do it no matter what.”

There have been other outbursts during presidential speeches in recent years, including by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, during the Biden administration and Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, during the Obama administration. Both remained in the chamber after interrupting the president.

Just days after threatening to abandon a European ally at war and kicking off a trade war, Mr. Trump offered no new policy proposals, repeatedly denigrated former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and mocked Democrats in the audience for their inability to stand in the way of his agenda.

The president did not dwell on foreign policy, though he again threatened to annex the Panama Canal, saying that “my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal, and we’ve already started doing it.”

He said he wanted to construct a “golden dome” to protect the United States from missile strikes and create a new shipbuilding office, and he tried to entice Greenland to leave Denmark and join the United States. He also announced that the United States had apprehended a terrorist who organized the bombing of the Abbey Gate during the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump spent much of his time telling the stories of Americans he invited to watch his address in the gallery, including the victims of violent immigrants and a boy with cancer who dreamed of becoming a police officer.

Throughout, he appeared to obsess over his political rivals. At one point, he motioned to Democrats, saying the system of justice in the country had been taken over by “radical left lunatics.” In response, progressive members of the party held up panels that said “False” and “That’s a lie.”

A number of Democrats staged a small protest, standing up and turning their backs toward Trump with T-shirts that said “resist” on the back. Instead of risking being removed by the sergeant-at-arms, the group quietly walked off the House floor.

Other Democrats chose to walk out of the speech, including Representative Maxwell Frost, Democrat of Florida, who wore a shirt that said “No Kings Live Here.”

“I could not in good conscience sit through this speech and give an audience to someone who operates with lawless disregard for Congress and the people of this nation,” said Representative Ayanna Pressley, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Mr. Trump accused Democrats of ignoring the “common-sense revolution” that he and his administration had begun to put in place. He addressed his opponents in the audience with contempt, gloating about his election victory, mocked them for his ability to evade prosecutions and called Mr. Biden the worst president in American history.

At one point, the president compared the treatment he received on the internet to the victims of revenge porn, saying “nobody gets treated worse than I do online.”

Mr. Trump claimed falsely that he had inherited an “economic catastrophe” from Mr. Biden. In fact, the United States had the strongest economy in the world when Mr. Trump took over, but it has been showing signs of strain in recent weeks amid federal funding cuts and tariffs.

The president focused on what he claimed was fraud in the federal bureaucracy discovered by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency. For several minutes, Mr. Trump listed off foreign aid and diversity programs that his government had eliminated, mocking them as unnecessary.

“Eight million to promote L.G.B.T.Q.I.+ in the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody has ever heard of,” the president said.

House Republican leaders have advised their members to stop holding in-person town halls amid a torrent of large-scale protests targeting some of the budget cuts Mr. Musk is overseeing. Even so, a number of Republican lawmakers jumped to their feet and cheered as the president referred to Mr. Musk, who was sitting in the gallery.

As he had in past speeches, Mr. Trump repeated false and exaggerated claims throughout the speech, prompting reactions from the Democrats in the chamber.

“That’s not true,” Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and the former House speaker, said quietly and shook her head as Mr. Trump ticked through debunked claims about the impossible ages of people collecting Social Security. Republicans, in contrast, cracked up and one yelled out “Joe Biden” when Trump asserted that someone on Social Security was older than 300.

Mr. Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress may have looked like a State of the Union speech and sounded like one, but it was not — at least not technically. Starting with Ronald Reagan in 1981, all presidents have delivered speeches to Congress shortly after their inauguration, and then again each year. Only those after their first year in office are considered to be State of the Union addresses.

A tradition begun by George Washington, the annual speech was discontinued by the third president, Thomas Jefferson, who opted for a written report. The speech was revived by Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

Before the speech began, Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, said he hoped some of Mr. Trump’s more extreme moves were only temporary.

“It’s a pause, not a stop; I think it’s part of a negotiation,” Mr. Thune said of the freeze in aid to Ukraine. Of the new tariffs, Mr. Thune said: “These tariff, I think, are hopefully temporary.”

House Republicans were decidedly more excited.

Speaker Mike Johnson said ahead of the speech: “I would like to frame it in gilded gold.”

Annie Karni

Reporting from the Capitol

Slotkin, giving Democrats’ response, warns Trump ‘will make you pay.’

Senator Elissa Slotkin, a first-term Democrat from Michigan, delivered a simple message as her party’s official response to President Trump’s combative and lengthy address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night: Mr. Trump, she said, was “going to make you pay in every part of your life.”

Ms. Slotkin, 48, fresh off a victory in a competitive race in a critical state, took up the tricky task of giving the opposing party’s answer to the annual congressional address at a moment when Democrats are struggling to find an effective message and messenger for pushing back on a president unbound.

During Mr. Trump’s address, some Democrats heckled him, others held up signs of protest and one lawmaker, Representative Al Green of Texas, was removed from the chamber for a cane-waving tirade in which he shouted that Mr. Trump had “no mandate” for his agenda and refused to sit back down.

In contrast, Ms. Slotkin struck a calm and upbeat tone in her brief remarks, working to appeal not just to Democrats but to Republicans as well by introducing herself via her national security credentials. (She noted that she served three tours in Iraq working for the C.I.A. under Republican and Democratic presidents.)

Ms. Slotkin chose to address the nation from Wyandotte, Mich., a city she noted that both she and Mr. Trump won in November. Mr. Trump’s speech was the longest presidential address in history, but Ms. Slotkin ignored most of what he said and kept a tight focus on her argument that the president’s actions and his agenda would make life more expensive for Americans.

“Your premiums and prescriptions will cost more, because the math on his proposals doesn’t work without him going after your health care,” she said. She noted that “Elon Musk just called Social Security the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”

Ms. Slotkin said she agreed with the idea of cutting government waste. “I’ll help you do it,” she said. “But change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe.”

Twice during her speech, she named previous Republican presidents approvingly while criticizing Mr. Trump. “I’m thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in the office in the 1980s,” she said, noting that Mr. Trump was “cozying up to dictators like Vladimir Putin.”

Ms. Slotkin said that Mr. Trump “clearly doesn’t think we should lead the world.”

She also had a message for demoralized Democrats: “Don’t tune out. It’s easy to be exhausted,” she said, warning that democracy itself was at risk.

“I’ve seen democracies flicker out,” she said. “I’ve seen what life is like when a government is rigged. You can’t open a business without paying off a corrupt official. You can’t criticize the guys in charge without getting a knock on the door in the middle of the night.”

Ms. Slotkin urged Democrats who felt lost to choose one issue they care about and get singularly involved with it. “Doomscrolling doesn’t count,” she said.

Ms. Slotkin, a center-leaning Democrat who worked as a C.I.A. analyst and in national security posts in the White Houses of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, has had her entire political career defined in opposition to Mr. Trump. She first won her House seat in 2018 as part of a tight-knit group of Democratic women with military or intelligence backgrounds who were recruited to run as a counterweight to the president.

The job of the televised response is often seen as a springboard for politicians to raise their profiles, and Ms. Slotkin reached out to viewers who might not know her. But the speaking slot can also be a thankless role, one that has been botched by so many promising elected officials in both parties that it is now considered almost cursed.

Ms. Slotkin avoided any notable missteps, opting for a straightforward delivery and a simple message calibrated to be broadly appealing. But she did not take a strident tone of resistance that many Democrats have chosen amid a backlash from their core supporters, who want them to be more forceful in opposing Mr. Trump.

A correction was made on 
March 5, 2025

An earlier version of this article misquoted Senator Elissa Slotkin. She said “I’m thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in the office in the 1980s,” not the 1990s.


Maya C. Miller

Reporting from the Capitol

Last year’s rebuttal came from Senator Katie Britt, Republican of Alabama, who was mocked online afterward for her delivery and forced cheerfulness as she delivered stark warnings to viewers. Slotkin, by contrast, delivered her message very matter-of-factly with a gentle yet firm smile and not much embellishment.

Shane Goldmacher

Politics reporter

Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, delivering the Democratic rebuttal, is speaking favorably of Reagan to contrast Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine. She said that Reagan “must be rolling over in his grave” after the Oval Office meeting last week, and that she was thankful Reagan was president in the 1980s — and not Trump.

Robert Jimison

Reporting from the Capitol

Democrats protest Trump with signs, clothes and walkouts

Some held up signs, some shouted retorts and others bore their messages of dissatisfaction on their clothing. More than a dozen left the House chamber in a show of protest.

Democrats, eager to register their opposition to President Trump before a big television viewing audience, wasted no time and displayed little timidity in venting their animus for Mr. Trump during his evening address to a joint session of Congress.

What started with a showy disruption by Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas, who was ejected from the House chamber not long after Mr. Trump began speaking for heckling him continued throughout the president’s speech with an array of shows of dissent.

Al Green Escorted Out During Trump Speech

Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas, was removed from the House chamber after he refused to sit down during President Donald Trump’s join address to Congress.

Chanting: “U.S.A., U.S.A. U.S.A., U.S.A. U.S.A., U.S.A. U.S.A., U.S.A.” Speaker Johnson: “Mr. Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir. Take your seat. If members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant at arms to restore order — remove this gentleman from the chamber. Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House. Mr. President, continue.” “Thank you.”

“What about the eggs,” one lawmaker shouted when Mr. Trump hailed improvements to the economy.

“Stock market?” a chorus of Democrats shouted, feigning puzzled expressions as Mr. Trump lauded his own economic achievements, telling lawmakers that he inherited an “economic catastrophe” from former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Representative Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas, stood and turned her back on Mr. Trump as he assigned blame to Mr. Biden for the country’s economic misfortunes. She, along with a handful of her Democratic colleagues — including Representatives Maxwell Frost of Florida, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico and Maxine Dexter and Andrea Salinas, both of Oregon — briefly made their protests with messages on black T-shirts, some emblazoned with the word “RESIST” and exited the chamber before the sergeant-at-arms had the opportunity to remove them.

Moments earlier as Mr. Trump entered the House chamber for his speech and shook the hands of dozens of Republican lawmakers, Ms. Stansbury held up a sign reading “This is not normal.” The sign was snatched from her hands by Representative Lance Gooden, Republican of Texas, but not before being captured in a frame just above Mr. Trump by the dozens of photographers who were in the chamber for the address.

While dozens of Democratic lawmakers arrived for the address sporting pink blazers and ties, carrying on a yearslong tradition of a silent sartorial protest, other members opted for a less subtle approach.

Jill Tokuda of Hawaii scrawled phrases from the 14th Amendment — which Mr. Trump has proposed changing to deny citizenship to some U.S.-born children of immigrants — onto her pink blazer. “We the people” was written across her lapels.

Representative Delia Ramirez, Democrat of Illinois, revealed a T-shirt under her black blazer reading “NO KING. NO COUP.”

The largest coordinated display of disapproval was in the form of round auction paddle-style signs held by dozens of Democrats with phrases including “Save Medicaid” and “Musk Steals.” Many of the signs had the message “False” on the reverse side. Democrats raised them throughout the speech to register nonverbal objections to specific claims by Mr. Trump without risking removal from the chamber.

Some who participated in the varied forms of protest said that the content of Mr. Trump’s remarks was too much to bear. Representative Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts was among the more than a dozen Democrats who left the speech early.

“I could not stand one more second, tolerate one more second,” she said in a video she recorded outside the chamber after exiting, adding that Mr. Trump’s remarks were full of “lies” and “propaganda.”

Jonathan Swan

White House reporter

Trump referred in the speech to a “letter” from Zelensky. What he described was the social media post from the Ukrainian president — which was, nonetheless, the note of submission and gratitude that Trump was looking for.

Annie Karni

Reporting from the Capitol

“Oh my God,” Nancy Pelosi mouthed to her seat mate, Representative Steny Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, when Trump asserted he was saved by God during the assassination attempt last year in order to “Make America Great Again.”

Erica L. Green

White House reporter

Trump, after announcing that the Zelensky was ready to sign a peace and minerals deal, said “we’ve had serious discussions with Russia and have received strong signals that they are ready for peace.”


 


 



 

 

 


 


 



 

 

 

 

 

 



Friday, July 5, 2024

As the Roberts Court tears our constituional order asunder, Americans soon will be learning that rats have infiltrated the plush quarters of our highest court

The Roberts Court: Exposed (Facebook)
 

Americans celebrated the Fourth of July with a variety of outdoor activities yesterday. But was there much to celebrate, considering that the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had just wrecked our constitutional order in the name of the Republican Party's four times indicted and once convicted felon, Donald Trump? The answer, according to Marjorie Cohn of Truthout, is "no." July 4, of course, is a holiday that grew out of America's desire to NOT be ruled by kings, and that is an irony not lost on Cohn. The headline on her op-ed piece dated July 4, 2024, tells the story: "The Supreme Court Has Made It Official: US Presidents Are Now Monarchs; The Supreme Court’s Trump v. United States ruling gives Donald Trump “legal” cover for past and future lawbreaking." In the process, SCOTUS kicked American democracy to the trash bin. 

Do Americans really want to be governed by a wannabe dictator, clothed as a king, who now (if re-elected) is free to do as he pleases. And Trump has done more than any presidential candidate in history to show his disdain for the rule of law. Gee,, what could go wrong? The answer, according to Cohn, is "plenty." She is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People's Academy of International Law, and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She writes:

On (Thursday), Americans celebrated Independence Day, commemorating the Declaration of Independence when the colonists threw off the yoke of King George III. When they crafted it, the framers of the Constitution established three co-equal branches of government to check and balance each other.

But the Supreme Court’s shocking decision in Trump v. United States takes us back to the bad old days of the monarchy. The reactionary supermajority held that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for core official acts, and presumptive immunity for all other official acts.

Donald Trump is charged in federal court with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against the right to vote for his acts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the six right-wingers, assured us that “the president is not above the law.” But he then proceeded to carve out a zone of immunity even broader than the one Trump’s legal team had sought.

In short, Roberts and his gang of conservative crooks pulled a con game on the American people by constructing a system that cannot work, is doomed to fail, and will have to be reworked (somehow) if we are to have even a semi-functional society. At least Roberts and Co. likely solved our "immigration crisis" that conservatives seem so concerned about. No immigrant in his right mind would want to come to America after Roberts' handiwork is fully in place. Why come here when life in Mexico, Panama, El Salvador, etc. probably will be much better.

Who is going to pick the apples and dig the potatoes on U.S. farms? I'm sure MAGAs will be lining up to apply for those jobs. Meanwhile, by openly supporting Trump -- who Roberts seems desperate to give sweeping powers that have no basis in U.S. law --  MAGAs are helping to usher in an era of chaos and disarray from which our country might never recover. Cohn writes:

Henceforth, a president will have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts done in the course of carrying out his constitutional powers or implementing a federal statute. “We thus conclude,” Roberts wrote, “that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” That includes commanding the armed forces, granting pardons, appointing ambassadors and members of the Supreme Court, overseeing international diplomacy and intelligence gathering, terrorism, trade and immigration.

A president has presumptive immunity for acts committed in “the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.” The burden is on the prosecutor to rebut that presumption of immunity by showing that prosecuting such an act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch,” a tall order.

“It is hard to imagine a criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts that would pose no dangers of intrusion on Presidential authority in the majority’s eyes,” Sonia Sotomayor noted in her impassioned dissent, joined by Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

John Roberts, assured us that “the president is not above the law.” But he then proceeded to carve out a zone of immunity even broader than the one Trump’s legal team had sought.

Roberts wrote that conversations between Trump and high-ranking Department of Justice (DOJ) officials (in which he pressured them to declare the election was corrupt) are absolutely immune. That means Trump could not be prosecuted even if he ordered DOJ officials to indict all congressional Democrats.

Trump’s conversations in which he bullied then-Vice President Mike Pence to stop the count or suspend the certification of the electors and urged state officials to send slates of false electors, and Trump’s tweets and his January 6 speech on the Ellipse “present more difficult questions,” Roberts wrote. (Were these issues before the court? If not, why was Roberts considering them?)

Perhaps Tanya Chutkan, of the D.C. Circuit Court, can inject some sense into this nest of nonsense. She might be the public's best hope for having a relatively stable society going forward, even though Roberts fired a bunch of legal gibberish in her direction. Who knows if Chutkan can clean up the mess Roberts has made? As for Roberts' conservative colleagues, Justice Amy Coney Barrett seems to be the only one who still has a few functioning brain cells:

The court sent the case back down to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to “carefully analyze” whether allegations in the indictment against Trump for trying to overturn the election results involved official conduct for which he would be immune from prosecution. That inquiry “may depend on the content and context of each,” Roberts added.

There is no immunity for unofficial acts. “There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity — perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader,” Roberts noted. It will depend on content, form and context.

“But there is not always a clear line between the President’s personal and official affairs,” Roberts wrote. “Distinguishing the President’s official actions from his unofficial ones can be difficult.” Roberts made that even more difficult by saying that “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” (Where did that notion come from? Did Roberts just pull it out from under his robe? Is this classic "legislating from the bench,"which conservatives supposedly disfavor?)

Moreover, in a prosecution for unofficial acts, evidence of official acts will be excluded. Although she joined the majority opinion, Amy Coney Barrett disagreed with that holding. “Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution” in a bribery case, she wrote in her separate concurrence. “To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability.”

The court's liberal justices were not buying whatever Roberts was trying to sell. Led by Sonia Sotomayor, the libs seemed to see a disaster bearing down on America. It's unclear if anyone besides avowed progressives sees what is ahead. Roberts' perfidy, however, clearly did not skip past Cohn, who wrote:

“In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor wrote. “The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.” The immunity the court created now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any president to use for their own political gain or financial interests, with the knowledge that they are inoculated from criminal liability, Sotomayor added.

Now, when a president “uses his official powers in any way,” he will be immune from criminal prosecution, Sotomayor noted. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, Immune, Immune.”

In her separate dissent, Jackson likewise sounded the alarm that U.S. presidents would be kings under the court’s ruling. “The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm,” she wrote. “I fear that they are wrong.” The court has declared for the first time that “the most powerful official in the United States can . . . become a law unto himself.”

“From this day forward,” Jackson wrote, “Presidents of tomorrow will be free to exercise the Commander-in-Chief powers, the foreign affairs powers, and all the vast law enforcement powers enshrined in Article II however they please — including in ways that Congress has deemed criminal and that have potentially grave consequences for the rights and liberties of Americans.”

Former President Richard Nixon famously claimed that, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” But after the Supreme Court ruled that he could not assert executive privilege to undermine a criminal investigation, Nixon resigned rather than face criminal charges for his role in the Watergate break-in. John Dean, who was Nixon’s White House counsel, told HuffPost, “Presumptively, [the president] has the power to assassinate a rival” after the court’s ruling in Trump v. U.S.

Should Americans be concerned about Trump's plans if he gets a second term? Absolutely, says Cohn, because he has made his plans clear. No American should be surprised when the Trump-Roberts train wreck begins to unfold:

Last December, Trump vowed that if elected, he would be a “dictator on day one” and promised “retribution” against his political rivals. Now he will presumably be immunized for those despotic pursuits.

Trump “plans to immediately test the boundaries of presidential and governing power, knowing the restraints of Congress and the courts are dramatically looser than during his first term,” his advisers told Axios.

In essence, the court has provided Donald Trump with “legal” cover for his lawbreaking in his effort to hold onto power after the 2020 presidential election, and license to blatantly break the law if he receives a second term. Although the DOJ will continue to pursue its prosecutions of Trump, the court’s delay in issuing this ruling has made it virtually impossible for Trump to go to trial on his three remaining criminal indictments before the November election. If and when he is elected, Trump could order his Justice Department to dismiss the two federal cases pending against him.

After the court handed him nearly unfettered power, Trump posted on Truth Social: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” (This reflects Trump's ignorance of U.S. law. It's a "win" for our Constitution? Can Trump find support for Roberts' rulings in the constitution? Of course not, because no such support exists.)

Joe Biden slammed the ruling, saying, “No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.” Now, however, “there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” he added.

Biden said, “I know I will respect the limits of presidential power as I have for three-and-a-half years, but any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law.”

Although Trump’s federal conspiracy trial will be delayed so that Judge Chutkan can decide which of his actions are immune from criminal consequences, it will provide a valuable opportunity for a full and public hearing about the former president’s actions to overturn the election results.

Chutkan will scrutinize Trump’s use of lies regarding election fraud to convince state officials to alter the results; his plot to create false slates of electors; his campaign to pressure Pence to violate his constitutional duty to refuse to certify the election results; and his efforts to exploit the chaos and violence he unleashed at the Capitol on January 6.

Stay tuned.

Monday, April 29, 2024

Samuel Alito and GOP thugs show in oral argument that they favor Donald Trump over U.S. institutions; how did that happen, and does it involve crimes?

(Francis Chung/Politico)

One might expect that oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) would be high-minded affairs, conducted by justices with razor-sharp minds, cutting to the core of complex, contentious issues. But last week's proceeding on Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity revealed that oral arguments are largely a waste of time, marked by "hypotheticals" that are wildly divorced from reality and muddled logic that could cause a reasonable person to ask: "How did these people get through law school, much less winding up on the nation's highest court?"

The logic of one justice, Samuel Alito, was so nonsensical and shortsighted that Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, dubbed it "beyond belief" -- and he did not mean that in a good way. Here is how Tomasky summarized Alito's mind-bending performance:

The associate justice’s logic on display at the Trump immunity hearing was beyond belief. He’s at the center of one of the darkest days in Supreme Court history.

Worst of all, Alito joined with his comrades on the court's right-wing majority to indicate they intend to grant Trump some sort of immunity -- a notion that has zero support in American law, has no place in our history, and could end democracy and the rule of law as we have come to know them.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had a firm grip on possible repercussions, which seemed to elude her colleagues on the right side of the bench. Said Jackson, cutting through all the hot air hanging over the session:

If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office? 

That scenario might have flown right over Alito's head, but it did not escape Tomasky's notice. Under the headline "Samuel Alito’s Resentment Goes Full Tilt on a Black Day for the Court." Tomasky writes:

On the day Donald Trump took office in January 2017, pondering what he might do to the country’s democratic norms and institutions, I wrote these words: “Trump will destroy them, if keeping Trump on top requires it. Or try to. He might not succeed. And that is where we rest our hope—on conservative judges who will choose our institutions over Trump. Mark my words: It will come to this.”

That hope seemed not misplaced back in 2020 and 2021, when a number of liberal and conservative judges, some of the latter appointed by Trump himself, handed Trump 60 or so legal defeats as he attempted to unlawfully overturn the election results. But after Thursday at the Supreme Court? That hope is dead. The conservative judges, or at least most of them, on the highest court in the land are very clearly choosing Trump over our institutions. And none more belligerently than Samuel Alito.

His line of questioning to Michael Dreeben, the attorney arguing the special counsel’s case, was from some perverse Lewis Carroll universe:

Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?

Does anything in our history suggest this is an actual problem? Of course not -- at least until a criminal of Donald Trump's magnitude landed on the American political scene. Since Samuel Alito seems to favor Donald Trump over American institutions, that thought got planted in his brain and spewed out of his mouth. How nutty was it? Tomasky spells that out in clear terms:

Let’s look to something I’d have thought lawyers and judges took seriously: historical evidence. American democracy has existed for nigh on 250 years, and power has been transferred from a president to his successor a grand total of 40 times (not counting deaths in office). On 11 occasions, a challenger has defeated a sitting incumbent—that is, a situation that creates the potential for some particularly bitter and messy post-election shenanigans.

Now, if Alito’s question really spoke to a malign condition that had hobbled American democracy throughout history and that loomed as a real problem that we had to take seriously, it would stand to reason that our history suggested that these power transfers had a wobbly history—that maybe, say, 12 of 40, and four or five of the 11, had been characterized by violence and unusual threats of retribution against the exiting executive.

But what does the record show? It shows, of course, that there is only one case out of the overall 40, and one case out of the more narrowly defined 11, in all of U.S. history where anything abnormal and non-peaceful happened. That, of course, was 2020.

And there was a lot of bad blood in previous transfers of power. You think John Adams loved the idea of handing power to Thomas Jefferson? John Quincy Adams was popping champagne to turn things over to Andrew Jackson? Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison, who traded wins, weren’t bitter in defeat? These people couldn’t stand each other. But they did what custom required—a custom never questioned by anyone until Trump came along.

So in other words: Alito throws all that democratic history out the window and treats Trump as the new normal, assuming that the American future is ineluctably strewn with a series of lawless Trumps. Alas, with respect to the Republican Party, there’s a chance time will prove him right about that (but only a chance; my cynicism about the depths to which this GOP will sink is almost limitless, but even I think that Trump is most likely sui generis in this respect, and that your average Republican, even the neofascist ones like Tom Cotton, should we be cursed with a Cotton presidency someday, would probably yield power peacefully if he lost).

But think about what it says about both where Trump has delivered this country, and about Alito’s assumptions about democracy. On the former point: Have we now reached a place where challenges to election results are going to be the norm? Where an opposition party can be counted on to find some legal technicality on which to prosecute a former president, rather than leaving him or her in peace as we have throughout our history?

This is another twisting of reality. Trump, his defenders would protest, is the one former president who has not been left in peace. Well, that is true, I confess. But maybe there’s a reason for it! Actually, there are two. Trump has not been left in peace because a) it was always obvious he was not retired, and b) he’s the only ex-president who tried to foment a coup against the United States of America and who declassified sensitive national-security documents with his beautiful brain.

This is where it becomes clear Alito pulled a scam on the American public in order to secure a seat in the rarefied air of SCOTUS. Tomasky writes:

And on the latter point: When George W. Bush named him to the court in 2005, experts told us—of course—that Alito was conservative, yes, but not an extremist (interestingly, Maryanne Trump Barry, Donald’s sister under whom Alito had worked as a prosecutor, was among those recommending Alito’s nomination). As The New Yorker reported in a 2022 profile, Alito was asked in 2014 to name a character trait that hadn’t served him well. His answer? A tendency to hold his tongue. Well, that problem’s been solved, eh? As writer Margaret Talbot noted of the justice, who ignored Chief Justice John Roberts’ importunings to strike a balance in the Dobbs decision, which he wrote: “He’s holding his tongue no longer. Indeed, Alito now seems to be saying whatever he wants in public, often with a snide pugnaciousness that suggests his past decorum was suppressing considerable resentment.”

And this week, he told us, in essence, that in his view democracy depends on allowing presidents to commit federal crimes, because if ex-presidents were to be prosecuted for such things, the United States would become a banana republic. That’s a Supreme Court justice saying that. And while Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and even Clarence Thomas didn’t go that far Thursday, it was obvious that the court’s conservatives are maneuvering to make sure that the insurrection trial doesn’t see the light of day before the election—in other words, that a sitting president who very clearly wanted Congress to overturn a constitutionally certified election result (about this there is zero dispute) should pay no price for those actions.

When I wrote seven years ago that we rested our hope on conservative judges who will choose our institutions over Trump, trust me, I wasn’t saying I was confident that they would. I was terrified that the day would eventually come. It came yesterday. The conservative jurists chose Trump. It will stand as one of the blackest days in Supreme Court history.

Tomasky, for all of his excellent analysis on immunity, did not dive fully into the swamp that Alito and his right-wing brethren (Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Roberts) created. (Note: Amy Comey Barrett clearly did not side with Trump's claim of absolute presidential immunity and made a number of thoughtful, well-reasoned comments that could help resolve this case. Because of that, we will not include her with the GOP-appointed scoundrels on the bench. In short, the women on the court -- Comey Barrett and the three liberals -- were clear-headed and in line with legal precedent, while the men were dullards who showed the intellect of Homer Simpson's drinking buddies.) 

It's hard to look at the SCOTUS swamp -- with clear signs that the GOP majority intends to craft some sort of immunity for Trump, even though it has no support in American law, and ask this question: Are Alito & Co. engaged in criminal behavior, and if the answer is yes (I believe it is) what crimes might be going on behind the scenes? I would point to obstruction of justice, conspiracy, bribery, honest-services fraud, and voter/ballot fraud. An investigation might unearth evidence of additional crimes. In my view, such an investigation needs to begin immediately, assuming someone in our government has the spine to take up such a controversial task. If someone doesn't, our democracy might be taking its dying breaths.