Rep. Swalwell: GOP hearing on judges opposing Trump is a ‘power grab'
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), member of the Judiciary Committee, joins MSNBC's Symone Sanders to discuss why Republicans on the Judiciary Committee want to hold a hearing about impeach judges who disagree with Donald Trump and how this 'philosophy goes against how this country was founded. Professor Melissa Murray also joins the conversation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Key Senator Looks to Slow Ted Cruz Plan on Fed Interest to Banks
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott said he opposes swift action on a proposal that would bar the Federal Reserve from paying interest on reserves to banks to help pay for Republicans' massive tax and spending package. 'While the desire to return to pre-crisis monetary policy operating procedures is understandable, any legislative change to the Federal Reserve's framework must follow regular order,' Scott said Thursday in a statement. 'This is not a decision to be rushed – it must be carefully considered and openly debated.'
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Bessent, Senator Warren in Heated Exchange Over Deficit
CC-Transcript 00:00Will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? Are varying scoring on that. So will the secretary of the Treasury. So I'm asking you, what is your view? Will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? It is my view that over the ten year window, it will decrease. You know, do you have anybody who agrees with you on this? Yes. Yes. Let me let me ask my question. Okay. Every credible independent expert agrees that Trump and the Republicans big, beautiful bill would add trillions of dollars to the national debt and would not even come close to paying for itself. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Penn Wharton budget model, and the Yale Budget Lab all agree on this, and they're looking at ten year windows. Thank you. So do the Conservative Tax Foundation and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Conservative groups, even Elon Musk and The Wall Street Journal are criticizing the bill for ballooning the national debt. The only people who are saying publicly that it's not going to add to the national debt, are you Donald Trump? The Republicans in Congress. Do you have an independent group that has put forward numbers that disagrees with all of these conservative groups and disagrees with The Wall Street Journal on this? Well, Senator, interesting to see you aligned with Elon Musk. But if I you're no more shocked than I am the. If we want to take the full congressional congressional budget scoring, they predict and I don't agree with their methodology, they predict a 2.4 trillion deficit, but they show the gap. No, no, no. But may I finish? They include that. But they've also scored 2.8 trillion in tariff income. So even even in Washington, D.C., math in Washington, D.C., math, that is a 400 billion surplus. Okay. So let me make sure I understand. This bill, you admit, will increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion, but you think there will be another bill and another set of agreements that somehow materialize haven't materialized so far, don't have any statutory authority, but that will make up the difference. So the answer to the original question will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? I think you just said it will increase this bill, increases the. I want to use all the all the CBO scoring and you can't take one without the other. I don't agree with the CBO. The law that we are scoring the bill that is in front of us. We don't have a tariff bill in front of us to score. Mr. Secretary, let me go on to the second question. You've said that government spending is, quote, out of control. You have also called government spending, quote, unsustainable. In fact, in the name of fiscal responsibility, you're working with the Republicans on this big, beautiful bill to pass the biggest cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in American history. So, Mr. Secretary, help me understand here. Why is the national debt so very important that you're trying to kick 16 million people off their health insurance? But increasing the national debt doesn't seem to matter if you're cutting taxes for billionaires and billionaire corporations. Well, first of all, a huge portion of this goes to family owned businesses that are passed through entities that are below that level. Senator. And I am sure you share my goals of Main Street prosperity. You know, I'm glad to do tax cuts for people of modest means. The question I'm asking is why does the deficit not matter to you? We're talking about knocking 16 million people off their health care. But it matters not. It does matter to you if we're knocking people off their health care, but not. Well, first of all, that figure is overstated by 5.1 million. That is amount not attributable to provisions. And do you think it's okay? It is. It is simply health care. First of all, let's set that straight. Work requirements account for 8 million of CBO's claim number. Again, we're creating the economy. So for most Americans, Terry. So you don't want to answer that? No, No, Senator, I am answering. No, you're not. And what I want is for Medicaid to be used there for mothers and children as it was meant not for 1.4 million illegal aliens, not for able bodied people, and not it's not used for people who are not documented. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say here, the part that troubles me the most is that the secretary is deeply worried about the about the deficit and is willing to knock 60 million or, as he says, nearly 11 million people off their health care matter so much. But it doesn't matter so much if you're cutting taxes for billionaires, then it's okay to run up a big deficit. I think that's wrong. For YouLive TV
an hour ago
Democrats criticize latest effort by Congress to regulate college sports as setback for athletes
WASHINGTON -- The latest effort by Congress to regulate college sports generated predictable partisan outrage on Thursday, with Democrats saying Republican-led draft legislation would claw back freedoms won by athletes through years of litigation against the NCAA. Three House committees are considering legislation that would create a national standard for name, image and likeness payments to athletes and protect the NCAA against future lawsuits. Last week, a federal judge approved a $2.8 billion settlement that will lead to schools paying athletes directly, and NCAA President Charlie Baker said now that his organization is implementing those major changes, Congress needs to step in and stabilize college sports. Baker said he supports the draft legislation that was the subject of Thursday's hearing by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, but there was little indication that any bill advanced by the House would generate enough Democratic support to surpass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. 'I'm deeply disappointed for the second year in a row, Republicans on this committee are advancing a partisan college sports bill that protects the power brokers of college athletics at the expense of the athletes themselves,' said Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass. Trahan noted that if the NCAA or conferences establish unfair rules, athletes can challenge them in court, with the settlement of the House v. NCAA antitrust case the latest example of athletes winning rights that they had been denied historically. 'This bill rewrites that process to guarantee the people in power always win, and the athletes who fuel this multibillion-dollar industry always lose,' said Trahan, who played volleyball at Georgetown. The NCAA argues that it needs a limited antitrust exemption in order to set its own rules and preserve a college sports system that provides billions of dollars in scholarships and helps train future U.S. Olympians. Several athletes are suing the NCAA over its rule that athletes are only eligible to play four seasons in a five-year period, and on Tuesday, a group of female athletes filed an appeal of the House settlement, saying it discriminated against women in violation of federal law. On the Senate side, a bipartisan group including Republican Ted Cruz of Texas has been negotiating a college sports reform bill for months, but those talks are moving more slowly than Cruz had hoped at the beginning of this Congress. The draft bill in the House would create a national standard for NIL, overriding the state laws that critics say have led to a chaotic recruiting environment. That, too, was criticized by Democrats and by their key witness at the hearing, Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association. Huma argued that the NCAA wants to get rid of booster-funded NIL collectives that another witness, Southeastern Conference associate commissioner William King, characterized as 'fake NIL' or 'pay for play.' Instead, Huma said the collectives are examples of the free market at work, noting that before players won NIL rights through a court case, boosters could only donate to athletic departments. Tom McMillen, a former Democratic congressman who played in the NBA after an All-America basketball career at Maryland, took a dim view of the bill's prospects. 'I think they're trying to come up with something and pull in some Democrats. I just don't know if that's going to succeed or not,' said McMillen, who for several years led an association of Division I athletic directors. 'There's a real philosophical divide, so that's the hard part. It's hard to bridge. And there's a zillion other issues.' The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., said the draft legislation already had some bipartisan support and he was open to changes that would get more Democrats on board. 'I will consider some of the suggestions, the legitimate suggestions that were made,' Bilirakis said, 'and I will be happy to talk to lawmakers that truly want to get a big bill across the finish line.'
