‘Worse than Watergate': House Judiciary Cmte Dem on Trump's DOJ
Following the DOJ's charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver, Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, joins The Weeknight table to discuss Trump's ongoing weaponization of the rule of law.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Justice Department calls Newsom National Guard lawsuit a ‘crass political stunt'
The Trump administration is urging a federal judge to reject California Gov. Gavin Newsom's bid to block the military from supporting immigration enforcement activities in Los Angeles, calling the lawsuit a 'crass political stunt' and warning that the restraining order Newsom wants would endanger federal personnel. 'That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous,' Justice Department lawyers said in a response delivered to San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer Wednesday. In a pointed, 32-page filing replete with political overtones, the administration contended that Trump's decision to deploy the military to help suppress unrest — stemming from ICE raids and arrests taking place across Los Angeles — is entirely within his authority as commander-in-chief, and unreviewable by the court. Breyer, a Clinton appointee, is set to hold a hearing Thursday afternoon on Newsom's request. The governor initially asked the court to block the deployment within two hours, but the judge agreed to a Justice Department request for 24 hours to respond. Trump has authorized the Pentagon to call up nearly 4,000 members of California's National Guard contingent on a mission to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities and personnel. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Though federal law generally bars the use of the military to enforce domestic laws, Trump invoked a provision that permits him to call up National Guard troops to protect federal property and personnel when there is a 'rebellion' or 'danger of rebellion.' The Justice Department described the chaotic situation on the ground over the weekend as 'mobs resisting federal authority in a manner that rises to the level of rebellion,' although city and state officials have emphasized that the unrest has impacted only a few relatively small parts of the sprawling metropolis. DOJ lawyers also urged Breyer not to second-guess the president's assessment that military support was needed. Newsom's claim that the law required Trump to consult him before issuing such an order is both wrong and dangerous, DOJ lawyers argued, because it would give state officials an effective veto of the president's military judgment. DOJ attorneys also dismissed as speculative the state's concern that the National Guard or military forces would take part in law enforcement. Images taken on the streets of Los Angeles Tuesday showed Guard forces standing watch as immigration enforcement officers detained and searched potential deportees. The administration argued that those troops were there to protect ICE officials, a distinct mission from carrying out immigration arrests. Justice Department lawyers salted their brief with a series of thinly-veiled political shots at Newsom, speculating that California officials might be 'unwilling' to put a stop to the violence. Two days after Trump suggested Newsom's arrest, the brief also suggests perhaps the governor had broken the law by failing to pass on Trump's order to state Guard officials, although those troops have responded to the president's directive. 'Even if Plaintiffs' interpretation of the statute were correct, the only party acting unlawfully would be Governor Newsom — not President Trump or Secretary Hegseth,' the attorneys wrote. And the Justice Department also quoted Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who recently criticized fellow Democrats over their posture toward the unrest. The DOJ brief also draws an analogy sure to grate on Newsom: comparing him to Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus, who sought to use that state's National Guard to resist court-ordered school desegregation in the 1950s. The federal statute Trump invoked 'affords no veto to Governor Newsom over the President's decision to call forth the guard, just as it afforded no veto to Governor Faubus when President Eisenhower last invoked the predecessor [statute] to ensure that the enforcement of federal law was not obstructed,' DOJ lawyers wrote.
Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Nirenberg says San Antonio did not get heads-up about Texas National Guard
Mayor Ron Nirenberg said San Antonio did not request, nor receive notice of, the Texas National Guard being here ahead of protests planned on Saturday against the Trump administration. Why it matters: Gov. Greg Abbott's decision to send the Texas National Guard to major city protests comes amid a national debate about the militarization of law enforcement and the rights of protesters. Catch up quick: Thousands are expected to protest during "No Kings Day" on Saturday nationwide and in downtown San Antonio. Organizers expect it will be the largest single-day rally against President Trump since the start of his second term. Abbott instructed the Texas National Guard to "use every tool and strategy to help law enforcement maintain order." The White House has already deployed the National Guard and Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Reality check: A San Antonio rally last weekend, in protest of ICE deportations and recent local arrests at the courthouse, remained peaceful. Zoom in: Democratic U.S. Reps. Joaquin Castro and Greg Casar said Abbott's decision is "inflammatory" and that he's "escalating tensions rather than promoting safety." What they're saying:"I have full faith and confidence in our community to exercise their First Amendment rights peacefully," Nirenberg said Wednesday at a press conference.
Hamilton Spectator
26 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Consultant on trial for AI-generated robocalls mimicking Biden says he has no regrets
LACONIA, N.H. (AP) — A political consultant told a New Hampshire jury Wednesday that he doesn't regret sending voters robocalls that used artificial intelligence to mimic former President Joe Biden and that he's confident he didn't break the law. Steven Kramer, 56, of New Orleans, has long admitted to orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before New Hampshire's Jan. 23, 2024, presidential primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice similar to the Democratic president's that used his catchphrase 'What a bunch of malarkey' and, as prosecutors allege, suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November. 'It's important that you save your vote for the November election,' voters were told. 'Your votes make a difference in November, not this Tuesday.' Kramer, who faces decades in prison if convicted of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate, said his goal was to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of AI when he paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording. He was getting frequent calls from people using AI in campaigns, and, worried about the lack of regulations, made it his New Year's resolution to take action. 'This is going to be my one good deed this year,' he recalled while testifying in Belknap County Superior Court. He said his goal wasn't to influence an election, because he didn't consider the primary a real election. At Biden's request, the Democratic National Committee dislodged New Hampshire from its traditional early spot in the 2024 nominating calendar but later dropped its threat not to seat the state's national convention delegates. Biden did not put his name on the ballot or campaign there but won as a write-in. Kramer, who owns a firm specializing in get-out-the-vote projects, argued that the primary was a meaningless straw poll unsanctioned by the DNC. At the time the calls went out, voters were disenfranchised, he said. Asked by his attorney, Tom Reid, whether he did anything illegal, Kramer said, 'I'm positive I did not.' Later, he said he had no regrets and that his actions likely spurred AI regulations in multiple states. Kramer, who will be questioned by prosecutors Thursday, also faces a $6 million fine by the Federal Communications Commission but told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he won't pay it. Lingo Telecom, the company that transmitted the calls, agreed to pay $1 million in a settlement in August. The robocalls appeared to come from a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair, Kathy Sullivan, and told voters to call her number to be removed from the call list. On the witness stand earlier Wednesday, Sullivan said she was confused and then outraged after speaking to one of the recipients and later hearing the message. 'I hung up the phone and said, 'There is something really crazy going on,'' she said. 'Someone is trying to suppress the vote for Biden. I can't believe this is happening.' Months later, she got a call from Kramer in which he said he used her number because he knew she would contact law enforcement and the media. He also described his motive — highlighting AI's potential dangers — but she didn't believe him, she testified. 'My sense was he was trying to convince me that he'd done this defensible, good thing,' she said. 'I'm listening to this thinking to myself, 'What does he thing I am, stupid?' He tried to suppress the vote.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
