Featured Stories:
‘The bell of stupidity’: Conservative’s Christmas video lampoons Trump’s latest speech
President Donald Trump was supposed to prioritize the economy at a MAGA rally last week — but instead rambled about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and other familiar foes.
In a Christmas-themed video, The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson (a Never Trump conservative former GOP strategist) and journalist Molly Jong-Fast brutally mocked the speech for failing to get the desired economic message across.
Jong-Fast told Wilson, "Let's talk about how positively b----- the whole thing is. It was meant to be a rally on affordability. Here's what was not discussed: affordability. Here's what was discussed: Marjorie Taylor Greene. He calls her Marjorie Traitor Brown."
Wilson, sounding amused, interjected, "And I'm also intrigued by how she's somehow a leftist."
Jong-Fast told the Never Trumper, "It has really been a week for Trump."
Wilson laid out a variety of ways in which Trump and the MAGA movement are having a bad Christmas, from the Epstein files to the economy.
"There is no unringing this bell of stupidity," Wilson told Jong-Fast. "They have f----- it up. They have made a giant mistake."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history
New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.
"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.
A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.
"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.
The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.
“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”
Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.
"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."
"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."
"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.
Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.
“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”
‘Never heard anything so ridiculous’: Lawmaker mocked over effort to impeach Kamala Harris
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday, following a House GOP caucus meeting in which members frantically strategized over how to stop momentum for Harris' newly kicked-off presidential campaign.
The impeachment articles proclaim that Harris has committed high crimes and misdemeanors through "incompetence" in her role as "border czar" (a position she has never actually had) and then proceed to cite several anecdotes of women killed by unauthorized migrants, as well as the fact that over 50 million fentanyl pills were seized by DEA in 2022 (even though seizures indicate the law is being enforced, and even though most of it is seized during border crossings at checkpoints, often from U.S. citizens.)
Nowhere in the resolution does it list a purported act of misconduct or abuse of power by Harris — something that was noticed by commenters on social media who roundly ridiculed the measure.
Read also: AOC introduces impeachment resolutions against Justices Alito and Thomas
"Ogles claims in this resolution that Harris is the 'designated border czar,' a nonexistent position that Biden did not name her to," wrote immigration law expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, providing a link to the White House announcement on the subject. "Here is the primary source. Biden is clear that Harris agreed to lead the admin's diplomatic 'root causes' strategy only."
"These idiots need a new bag of tricks. This is so tiresome," wrote "Mrs. Betty Bowers," the satirical Christian fundamentalist persona of Canadian comedian Deven Green.
"What a stupid move," wrote the account @TisMoreorLess.
"This is great in that it shows just how panicked they are," wrote the account @SundaeDivine.
"I've never heard anything so ridiculous," wrote the account @sandiechill.
"They have nothing except their own embarrassment at this point," wrote the account @J_Pauselius.
"The Republican party is the political retribution party. They've done nothing for the American people," wrote the account @DenisonBarbs.
Ogles, who has come under fire for embellishing his political resume before being elected and has faced an ethics complaint over his campaign finances, is no stranger to pushing politically charged show bills. Last month, he vowed to introduce a "No Juicing Joe" bill that would have required President Joe Biden to disclose whenever he takes a "mind-altering stimulant."
Read excerpts of the impeachment resolution below or at the link here.
— (@)
‘Homesick’ MAGA rioter who tried to claim asylum in Ireland arrested on return to U.S.
Wisconsin Trump supporter Paul Kovacik tried to flee the country and claim asylum in Ireland — only to grow homesick, return to America, and promptly get arrested.
In a legal filing flagged by Politico's Kyle Cheney it was revealed that Kovacik late last year fled to Dublin to claim asylum shortly before he was to begin what was supposed to have been a 90-day prison sentence.
However, it seems that Kovacik couldn't last more than seven months in a foreign country.
"On June 19, 2024, Kovacik decided to voluntarily return to the United States from Ireland," the court filing states. "Kovacik advised that he... had recently decided to voluntarily withdraw his asylum claim and return to the United States because he felt 'homesick.'"
ALSO READ: Harris leads Trump in first poll taken since Biden quit
Kovacik then flew into Minneapolis, where he was "promptly arrested" and taken to Hennepin County Jail before being transferred to a prison in Chicago where he is currently serving his original 90-day prison sentence.
However, even after getting out of jail, he may get additional time, as the court filing states that "there is probable cause to believe that" he broke the law that "makes it a crime to fail to surrender for service of a sentence pursuant to a court order."
Major donor believes Democrats ‘squandered’ chance to draft party’s next ‘Lebron James’
A big-time donor for President Joe Biden thinks the Democrats missed a big opportunity by passing the ball to Vice President Kamala Harris without a convention, and he won’t be funding her run.
John Morgan, a Florida attorney and major donor for previous Democratic candidates, shared his views with Fox News host Neil Cavuto on Tuesday afternoon on why he’s not giving the Democratic presidential nominee any money.
“Harris brings a lot of great things to the table,” Morgan said. “Is she the best messenger? Is she the best person? Is her way the best way to go forward? And for me, I don’t think so.”
He compared the convention process to a fantasy basketball draft, noting that any smart player’s top draft should be a no-brainer.
“We would pick Lebron James,” Morgan said. “We had that type of opportunity but they seem to be squandering it by taking a lesser pick.”
Read also: ‘I’m out’: Major Biden donor reveals why he’s not backing Kamala Harris
Cavuto pressed Morgan on who he thinks his party’s Lebron James is, and he listed off several party favorites: Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Witmer – noting that a vetted combination of star players would be the strongest choice.
But that ship has sailed, Morgan said, adding that whoever she picks as a running mate is irrelevant at this point.
“The deal is done. I don’t think there’s anything more that can be done,” Morgan said. “People vote for president, they don't vote for vice president.”
Watch the clip below or at this link.
‘By hell, she’s impressive’: Kamala Harris gets thumbs up for energetic Wisconsin speech
Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a speech before an enthusiastic crowd in Milwaukee on Tuesday that earned plaudits from many progressive political observers — as well as relief about the contrast she delivers between herself and both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
Harris, who was endorsed by Biden on Sunday after he announced that he would be dropping out of the 2024 race, delivered a fiery address that touched on themes ranging from voting rights to reproductive freedoms to gun safety.
Writing on Twitter, many progressives took immediate note of the jolt of energy she had injected into the campaign.
"Elections are about all kinds of things, but I think a happy person talking about the future fits the moment better than an angry old man yelling about the past," argued Slate columnist Zachary Carter.
Watching Kamala Harris speaking in Wisconsin... By hell she’s impressive," wrote British broadcaster and media personality Carol Vorderman. "And she’s going to win … she’s energizing the young voters and has no fear of the fight."
RELATED: Harris leads Trump in first poll taken since Biden quit
NYU Law professor Chris Sprigman, meanwhile, praised Harris for delivering "a smiling, warm, positive affect, combined with coherent, declarative sentences in plain English."
"The election is going to be hard-fought," he added. "But God what a relief."
"So glad Harris is going with a future-focused message against Trump," commented Pod Save America host Tommy Vietor. "That's been missing to date imo. This is a Janet Jackson election: what have you done for me lately?"
Political reporters who watched the event also took notice of the new energy delivered by Harris.
"Hard to overstate how hyped the crowd is," wrote Politico Playbook's Eugene Daniels. "Very different vibe than usual."
"The contrast between Harris's speech and the speeches we've been hearing Biden give all year was striking," wrote New York Times reporter Peter Baker. "At none of the Biden speeches I've covered lately was the case made against the other side this sharply defined and delivered nor has there been this kind of energy."
Fox News cuts off Kamala Harris’ first campaign speech after she comes for Donald Trump
Fox News declined to air Vice President Kamala Harris's first presidential campaign speech in its entirety, pulling the plug soon after she attacked Republican nominee Donald Trump.
During an event in Wisconsin, Harris said she would challenge Trump's record "any day of the week."
"So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump's type," she asserted. "As Attorney General of California, I took on one of our country's largest for-profit colleges that was scamming students. Donald Trump ran a for-profit college that scammed students."
"As a prosecutor, I specialized in cases involving sexual abuse," she pointed out. "Well, Trump was found liable for committing sexual abuse."
Harris said that the presidential race was "about two different visions for our nation."
"One where we are focused on the future," she said. "The other focused on the past."
But only minutes after the speech began, Fox News cut back to its anchors in the studio while other networks, including CNN, MSNBC and Newsmax, ran it in its entirety.
"All right, she said she'll put her record up against Donald Trump's record any day," Fox News host Sandra Smith told co-host John Roberts. "Very little mention, John, of her accomplishments while vice president, while in the White House."
Exclusive: Harris? Newsom? Whitmer? GOP delegates dish on who they want Trump to face
"Yeah, critics would say if she was to base a speech on her accomplishments in the White House, it would be a very short speech," Roberts opined. "But now we know at least what her major line of attack is going to be."
"So she's going to, it's going to be the prosecutor versus the convicted felon thing," he added, rolling his eyes.
Furious columnist hits out at N.Y. Times for report on Black voters’ view of Kamala Harris
Black pundits and columnists are already predicting the racism that will surface from some of the top media outlets in the country as they try to cover a candidate of color in the presidential race.
Writing for "The Nation," legal expert Elie Mystal shredded the New York Times for a report they titled: "Some Black Voters Say They Wonder if a Black Woman Can Win."
Mystal was furious as the Times "used other Black people to make their point."
Read Also: The prosecutor vs. the felon
He explained that as a Black voter, he wonders about many things.
"I wonder if aliens exist; I wonder if God is an a--hole; I wonder how many abortions Donald Trump has paid for," Mystal wrote Tuesday. "But the Times wouldn’t run a story that stated 'Some Black Voters Say They Wonder How Many Active Ku Klux Klan Members Attended the Republican National Convention.'"
He thinks that more Black voters likely wonder about the latter than about whether Harris could win in November.
One Black woman from Atlanta, interviewed by the Times, said, "America is just not ready for a woman president, especially not a Black woman president."
Keli Goff at The Daily Beast is another writer parroting that language, he said. Her sentiment is akin to, “I’d vote for a Black woman, but not that Black woman.”
Mystal wrote that Goff simply stating what the U.S. has told Black people for generations, especially Black women. That message: "America hates you."
"We see the disdain this country holds for people of color whenever we turn on the news. We feel the antipathy this country holds for women every time we go to work, or read an opinion from the Supreme Court," Mystal wrote.
"Harris has been subjected to the worst press coverage of any vice president in my lifetime, and she’s about to be subjected to the worst coverage of any presidential candidate in American history… save perhaps Hillary Clinton."
He called it nothing more than "white male supremacy," which not only dictates the leadership, but works to hold others down by telling them that they feel don't deserve power.
"I can already see David Brooks and Bret Stephens clacking away on their keyboards, doing everything in their power to call Harris unqualified, unintelligent, and undeserving of the office she seeks," Mystal wrote.
The Washington Post editorial board has already taken a different path by encouraging Harris not to hold back out of prudence.
He warned it will get "ugly," but said he won't be deterred by "programming that’s designed to make me think a woman of color can’t win."
While "they are not ready for her, but she is ready to beat them," Mystal closed.
Popular articles
‘The bell of stupidity’: Conservative’s Christmas video lampoons Trump’s latest speech
President Donald Trump was supposed to prioritize the economy at a MAGA rally last week — but instead rambled about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and other familiar foes.
In a Christmas-themed video, The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson (a Never Trump conservative former GOP strategist) and journalist Molly Jong-Fast brutally mocked the speech for failing to get the desired economic message across.
Jong-Fast told Wilson, "Let's talk about how positively b----- the whole thing is. It was meant to be a rally on affordability. Here's what was not discussed: affordability. Here's what was discussed: Marjorie Taylor Greene. He calls her Marjorie Traitor Brown."
Wilson, sounding amused, interjected, "And I'm also intrigued by how she's somehow a leftist."
Jong-Fast told the Never Trumper, "It has really been a week for Trump."
Wilson laid out a variety of ways in which Trump and the MAGA movement are having a bad Christmas, from the Epstein files to the economy.
"There is no unringing this bell of stupidity," Wilson told Jong-Fast. "They have f----- it up. They have made a giant mistake."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history
New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.
"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.
A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.
"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.
The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.
“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”
Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.
"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."
"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."
"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.
Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.
“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”
