As Trump targets Biden with new investigation, a Republican endgame comes into focus
Donald Trump's unhealthy fixation on Joe Biden took a weird turn over the weekend, as the Republican incumbent amplified a social media message that accused the former Democratic president of being a robotic clone after secretly having been 'executed in 2020.'
While this didn't reflect well on the current president's judgment, it did draw some guffaws from observers who marveled at the outlandish absurdities Trump has embraced as part of his hysterical campaign against his immediate predecessor. His latest anti-Biden move, however, was far less amusing. NBC News reported:
President Donald Trump on Wednesday directed a wide-ranging investigation into former President Joe Biden and officials in his administration, accusing his aides of using 'autopen' signatures to cover up his 'cognitive decline' and assert presidential power. ... The announcement Wednesday directs the White House counsel and Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether anyone 'conspired to deceive the public about Biden's mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President.'
The presidential directive to the Justice Department came roughly two weeks after Trump published an item to his social media platform in which he accused officials in the Biden White House of having committed 'TREASON' as part of a secret plot to 'destroy our Country.'
Biden apparently wasn't pleased with the developments, issuing a statement that described the investigation as a 'distraction' from the Republican agenda. 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' said the Delaware Democrat.
There is, of course, a degree of irony to the circumstances. After his defeat in the 2020 election, Trump spent years insisting that Biden had ordered an investigation into him — an odd conspiracy theory for which there is literally no evidence. Now, it's Trump who's doing exactly what he falsely accused his predecessor of doing.
What's more, it's not just the executive branch taking the anti-Biden crusade seriously. House Republicans are ramping up their investigations into the former president — House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer has even subpoenaed Biden's personal doctor to testify before Congress — as are some Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The broader question is why the party has launched this crusade.
To be sure, there are plenty of possible explanations. I've seen some suggest that Republicans are engaged in an elaborate act of performative cruelty against a partisan foe as he combats an aggressive form of cancer. Others have argued that the relentless GOP efforts against Biden are designed to keep an unpopular former president in the news, distracting attention from the current president's controversies, while keeping Democratic officials and candidates off balance.
But it's against this backdrop that some of Biden's most antagonistic foes have already made their motivations clear.
Just hours before Trump signed his new anti-Biden directives, for example, Comer was quite candid during an appearance on Fox Business. 'If these executive orders were just done and authorized by staff, and Joe Biden's signature was forged on the autopen as some would believe, then I think the Trump administration is gonna have a pretty good standing in court to get rid of a lot of these executive orders,' the Kentucky Republican told viewers.
Similarly, the Justice Department's Ed Martin, the Trump-appointed pardon attorney, declared this week that he's investigating Biden's clemency actions, which followed the incumbent president's recent statement that he's voiding at least some Biden's pardons because, according to Trump's conspiracy theory, Biden wasn't competent enough to sign or even understand them.
With this in mind, the endgame is coming into focus: Trump and his party want to invalidate parts of Biden's presidency, clearing the way for, among other things, new partisan investigations into those whom Biden protected.
Will any of this work? What will the courts say? Will there be a public backlash against Republicans for focusing so much energy into investigating the past instead of preparing for the future? Will the Justice Department start indicting Democrats to satisfy the incumbent president's political demands? Watch this space.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president? It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump. The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.' At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages? 'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.' The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company. 'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?'' It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk. There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company. Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company. The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.' To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act. But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.' Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own. But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.'' There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do. 'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said. It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson. 'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Standoff over red flag hearing continues in Maine Legislature, may go to court
Jun. 6—A partisan standoff over whether to hold a public hearing on a citizen-initiated red flag referendum is likely to stretch into next week's legislative sessions and could wind up in court. Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, tried late Thursday to force Democrats to schedule a public hearing on the referendum, proposing a series of floor motions in the Senate, all of which were rejected. He said Friday that he intends to introduce additional motions next week if Democrats still haven't agreed to hold a hearing on the initiative. "I don't think this thing is over yet," Stewart said. "If I had to wager a bet, there are some other motions I'm intending to make when we get back next week, assuming they still haven't done the right thing." The red flag proposal, if passed by voters, would make it easier to confiscate the guns of a person in crisis by allowing family members to initiate the process and by removing a required mental health evaluation. The proposal came forward in the wake of the mass shooting in Lewiston in October 2023 and is certain to generate intense debate over gun rights and restrictions ahead of the November vote. Meanwhile, the impasse over a public hearing on the proposal has added to tensions at the State House as lawmakers are in the busy final days of the legislative session. Republicans point to a 2019 law that requires public hearings for citizen initiatives that are headed toward statewide referendum votes, unless lawmakers formally vote to waive the requirement. Such hearings have been held on other citizen proposals, but not all: A 2021 citizen initiative never received a hearing or the required waiver and was still sent to referendum and passed by voters. Democrats have so far not backed down, arguing in part that the Maine Constitution does not require the hearing and also citing legislative rules. Gun rights supporters who are opposed to the referendum proposal are pointing to the state law and threatening legal action against Democratic leaders, with one top advocate saying Friday that they have attorneys drafting a lawsuit. "When there's a state law on the books the Legislature can't just ignore it, so that will be the basis for the challenge," said David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, an advocacy group for gun owners and sportsmen that is working on the lawsuit. Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, which initiated the citizen's referendum, said in a written statement Friday that the group is "happy to debate this issue any time" and accused Republicans of playing "political tricks" by waiting until the end of the session to raise questions. "Now the National Rifle Association has joined them, parachuting into our state to muddy our Democratic process," Palmer said. "While they are doing that, we are focusing on the next five months, where we will be having this conversation publicly, talking to voters throughout the state, and in November every Maine voter will have the chance to make their voices heard." Citizens initiatives are brought forward by voters though a signature-gathering and application process. While the Legislature can choose to enact the proposals, they typically send them to statewide referendum votes. Maine's Legislature held a public hearing last month on the only other citizen initiative currently pending. That proposal would require photo identification prior to voting in Maine and put new restrictions on absentee voting. It also is headed for a fall referendum vote. Lawmakers also held a public hearing last year on the only citizen-initiated referendum they received in 2024, LD 2232, to limit contributions to political action committees that make independent expenditures. All four citizen initiatives in 2023 also received hearings. Legislative records, however, show that no public hearing or vote to waive the hearing was held for an initiative in 2021 that was aimed at stopping the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line through western Maine. At a committee work session on that initiative, a legislative analyst did not address whether lawmakers needed to hold a public hearing but did note some unique circumstances. Two weeks after the initiative was handed to the Legislature, lawmakers adjourned and the bill was carried over to a special session. Sen. Dick Bradstreet, R-Vassalboro, the sponsor of the 2019 law to require public hearings, said Friday that the circumstances of the 2021 case were different because lawmakers are supposed to hold the hearing in the same session in which they receive it and in that case they had just received the proposal when they ended up adjourning. He said the reason no hearing was held in 2021 was "kind of a technicality." LD 1378, the bill resulting from the red flag citizen initiative, was transmitted to the Legislature on March 27, during the current session that's scheduled to end June 18. "You really can't compare the two because in this case they're choosing not to have the hearing, even though the legal requirements are there," Bradstreet said. "Before, they could say they weren't in the same session. ... Now they're kind of flouting the law." Bradstreet said he didn't recall any outcry over the lack of a public hearing on the 2021 measure, but said there was less knowledge of the relatively new law at the time. He said he put forward the bill in 2019 because of a handful of initiatives that had been put forward around that time that were generating a lot of advertising. DISCERNING FACT FROM FICTION "I thought, 'How can people discern fact from fiction?'" Bradstreet said. "The only way to do that would be some type of hearing where people could question what the initiative does and what some repercussions would be, and where both sides would have a chance to present their arguments without the propaganda." In a late-night session Thursday, Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, rejected a proposal from Stewart to consider a formal waiver of the public hearing requirement to comply with state law, saying that his proposal was "not properly before the body." Daughtry said the Legislature's rules take precedence over statutes passed by prior groups of lawmakers regarding legislative proceedings and that Stewart's motion was asking for lawmakers to take an "unnecessary vote" on the citizens initiative. Daughtry also noted that the initiative was still before the Judiciary Committee, where she said it could have further action. A spokesperson for Daughtry and Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, the Senate chair of the committee, said Friday that they would not comment on the calls for a public hearing. Rep. Amy Kuhn, D-Falmouth, the House chair of the committee, did not respond to a voicemail message or email. Trahan, from the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, said his group in conjunction with Gun Owners of Maine and the National Rifle Association will focus their lawsuit on the 2019 law and argue that lawmakers need to either hold the hearing or vote by a two-thirds majority to waive it. The group is also fundraising to support the effort. Trahan said that just because lawmakers "got away with" not holding a hearing on the 2021 initiative, it does not mean it's not required in the law. "Why don't they just make this easy and hold the public hearing?" he said. "There's nothing to hide. Good public discourse adds to the debate." Copy the Story Link
