Padilla fundraises off of forcible removal from Noem presser
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Democrats are fundraising off of his removal from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference on Thursday.
Padilla, along with fellow Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the Democratic National Committee, blasted out fundraising emails on Friday citing the incident.
'If that's what they do to a United States Senator with a question, imagine what they do to farm workers, day laborers, cooks, and the other nonviolent immigrants they are targeting in California and across the country,' Padilla's fundraising note read, echoing his remarks from Thursday following the incident.
Schiff touted Padilla as 'one of the most decent people I know' in his fundraising appeal, while the DNC warned the incident 'isn't normal and are steps toward authoritarianism.'
The effort comes as Democrats unite behind Padilla following his removal from the press conference and broadly condemn the Trump administration's handling of those critical of the president's immigration policies.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the incident involving Padilla 'reeks of totalitarianism' and called for an investigation into the matter, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called federal agent's forcible removal and handcuffing of the senator 'outrageous, dictatorial and shameful.'
On Thursday, video surfaced of Padila interrupting Noem's press conference and approaching her. Padilla is heard in the video identifying himself by name and his title as he moved toward the front of the conference room trying to ask a question. He was then grabbed by agents, who pushed him backward, shoved him through a set of double doors, and forced him onto the ground and handcuffed him.
The White House and Department of Homeland Security have blamed Padilla for the incident.
'Padilla stormed a press conference, without wearing his Senate pin or previously identifying himself to security, yelled, and lunged toward Secretary Noem. Padilla didn't want answers; he wanted attention,' said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. 'Padilla embarrassed himself and his constituents with this immature, theater-kid stunt — but it's telling that Democrats are more riled up about Padilla than they are about the violent riots and assaults on law enforcement in LA.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Political props': From deployment to a parade, Trump's use of military prompts concerns
President Donald Trump is sending the military into American streets in provocative ways, with a deployment to quell protests and a massive military parade, projecting power and celebrating troops while raising alarms among critics. Trump has long talked about wielding the military more aggressively for domestic purposes. He clashed with military leaders who resisted some of his requests during his first administration. Trump's approach to the military is coming into focus again during a week that began with the Commander-in-Chief deploying Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and will end with the planned military parade celebrating the Army's birthday. 'I think Trump looks at the military as political props used to demonstrate his authority,' said former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, now a frequent critic of the president. Trump's recent military actions and parade plans are drawing comparisons to authoritarian regimes. Newsom said Trump is acting like a 'dictator.' Administration officials have said the military is needed in L.A. to maintain order. Questioned by members of Congress about the troop deployment during a June 10 hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the situation in L.A. as 'lawless' and said, 'President Trump believes in law and order.' "If we didn't get involved, right now Los Angeles would be burning," Trump said June 10 during an event in the Oval Office. In the past, Trump's views on the military and concerns about how he might wield troops domestically have generated bipartisan pushback. After Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to accept the results, all 10 living secretaries of Defense – Republicans and Democrats – signed a letter urging military leaders not to get involved in the election aftermath, signaling apprehension that Trump would use the military in ways they described as 'dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional.' Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn suggested in a television interview after the 2020 election that the president could invoke martial law and seize voting machines to rerun the election, which former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper later described in his book as 'scary.' Trump asked Flynn about the martial law idea during a White House meeting in December 2020, according to media reports. With that backdrop, Democrats and other Trump critics are raising concerns about the potential consequences of Trump's decision to send troops to Los Angeles, his planned parade and future military escalations he might consider. During his first term, military leaders sometimes pushed back on his suggestions, people who 'we may euphemistically call, 'the adults in the room,'" said William Banks, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Syracuse University and founding director of the Institute on National Security and Counter Terrorism. 'I think his senior people today are of a far different caliber," Banks said. "Put pejoratively, they're sycophants.' Some legal experts question whether Trump has the authority to circumvent Newsom and deploy the California National Guard under the law he's using. California has sued to stop Trump's deployment. 'It's sort of wading into uncharted legal territory, and it raises a lot of legal questions and concerns, frankly, the way that he is using this law,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Looming over the discussion is the Insurrection Act, which Trump sought to invoke during his first term. It gives the president wide leeway to use troops domestically. Trump is using federal troops to protect federal property and law enforcement in L.A. The Insurrection Act would give him expanded authority to use troops for policing, experts say. 'The Insurrection Act is dangerously broad… something close to a blank check if he chooses to take the political hit for invoking it,' said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Congress adopted the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, barring the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless authorized, such as through the Insurrection Act. It reflects 'a centuries-old principle in Anglo-American law against military interference in civilian affairs,' Goitein, of the Brennan Center, said. 'If the leader of a country can turn the military inward against the people, that has great implications for individual liberties,' Goitein added. 'It is a step on the path to tyranny, if not an indication of tyranny itself.' Trump mulled invoking the Act during a White House event on June 10. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." The Insurrection Act has been invoked 30 times, most recently in May 1992 by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson to police rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King. Presidents from both parties have considered invoking the act against the wishes of state governors, such as during civil rights conflicts during the 1950s and 1960s. More recently, some Democrats urged former President Joe Biden to deploy the National Guard to remove razor-wire barriers that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott installed along the border with Mexico, but he didn't. Banks said Trump appeared to be edging back from invoking the Act, which could have long-term consequences. 'It could be corrosive,' Banks said. Bolton, Trump's former aide, predicted any effort by Trump to use the Insurrection Act would end up in court, but said, "I also don't think we should get paranoid and just engage in speculation about what he might do." Trump has been careful to steer clear of the Insurrection Act so far, Bolton noted. Esper, the former Defense secretary, resisted Trump's efforts to invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Esper's book describes an Oval Office meeting with Trump, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other administration officials on June 1, 2020, as 'probably one of the most significant meetings a secretary of defense ever had with a commander in chief.' During the meeting, which occurred amid protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country following the death of George Floyd – an unarmed Black man killed by Minneapolis police – Trump repeatedly brought up the Insurrection Act and pushed to use active-duty troops to quell protests, Esper wrote. 'Can't you just shoot them Just shoot them in the legs or something,' Trump said, according to Esper. 'I didn't have to look at General Milley to know his reaction,' Esper wrote. 'I was sure it was the same as mine: Utter disgust at the suggestion, and a feeling we were only minutes away from a disastrous outcome.' Esper wrote that Trump eventually 'backed down.' His book details other concerns about Trump's approach to the military, including a proposal for a July 4 celebration in 2020 featuring a fleet of military vehicles that he worried would politicize the military. Milley told Trump's chief of staff that such displays were 'not what the United States does – it was what authoritarian states like North Korea do,' according to Esper. The same concerns have been raised about Trump's military parade planned for June 14, which will celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary with tanks and other vehicles rolling through the streets of the nation's capital. Trump's 79th birthday is the same day. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, called it a "dictator-style military parade." 'There's nothing wrong with military parades when there's reason for them, but the fact it's Trump's birthday on Saturday is not a good reason for it,' Bolton said. Trump said on June 10 that the parade would be "fantastic" and warned people protesting would be met with "very heavy force." "It's going to be an amazing day," he said. "We have tanks, we have planes, we have all sorts of things. And I think it's going to be great. We're going to celebrate our country for a change." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump using military in provocative ways with protests, parade
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Army Sec: $40 million parade on Trump's birthday a 'Once-in-a-lifetime opportunity'
WASHINGTON — The Army's $40 million parade Saturday to celebrate its 250th anniversary is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to showcase the service, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told USA TODAY. That it also falls on President Donald Trump's birthday, and that he'll preside over the tanks and troops that rumble and march past him from a specially built reviewing stand? Simply coincidence. 'Unless soldiers 170 years before he was born somehow timed that date,' Driscoll in a June 12 interview. Driscoll talked about the parade and who's expected to attend (invitations almost certainly have been extended to Mark Esper and Mark Milley, top former officials who clashed with Trump, he said). Driscoll also addressed the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objection of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and the No. 1 threat to his soldiers – cheap, lethal drones. Planning for the Army's 250th birthday began before Driscoll became the civilian leader of the Army on February 25, he said. A longstanding tradition for armies, a military parade was deemed a natural way to highlight the Army's strength and service to the United States. 'I think sometimes the media gets in its own way in telling stories,' Driscoll said. 'The coincidence that the president's birthday is on this date that occurred 250 years ago, and that we the Army want to tell this story, is I think going to be backed up. The reason we are spending this money, the reason we are so excited about it, I think we'll be backed up by recruiting data in the months ahead. 'This is not intended to be performative. We sincerely believe this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.' The parade, which includes potential damage to streets in Washington, D.C. from armored vehicles including 38 70-ton Abrams tanks, will range in cost from $25 million to $40 million. Democrats have criticized the event as a waste of money to promote Trump's image. "This is Trump. This is all about his ego and making everything about him," Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on May 14. The televised parade will reach a broad audience of Americans and spur some of them to serve, Driscoll said. 'We believe that so many Americans are excited about this and will tune in,' Driscoll said. 'And it will quantitatively fill up our recruiting pipeline for the years to come. We think it is absolutely worth the investment.' Driscoll said he believed with near certainty that Esper and Milley had been invited to attend the parade. The Army, a spokesman for Milley and the White House have not confirmed that. Esper is the former Army secretary Trump promoted to Defense secretary and then fired in November 2020 after he lost the election. Esper incurred Trump's wrath for urging restraint in deploying the military against protesters. Milley, a retired Army general, its chief of staff and the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also lost Trump's favor after apologizing for appearing in uniform near Trump after law enforcement officials forcibly cleared racial justice protesters from Lafayette Square, near the White House, so Trump could walk across it. The parade features dozens of armored combat vehicles, helicopters, vintage warplanes, thousands of soldiers in uniforms from the Revolutionary War to the present, horses, two mules and a dog. More: Soldiers excited (and nerve wracked) to drive tanks in DC military parade The procession will highlight the 'robustness and incredible talent of our soldiers,' Driscoll said. He hopes that Americans 'feel pride and honor' when they watch the parade. 'This is their Army,' he said. In 2017, during his first term, Trump wanted to hold a military parade, but Pentagon officials were leery of appearing to politicize the armed forces. Then-Defense Sec. Jim Mattis said he would 'rather swallow acid,' according to 'Holding the Line,' a book by his former speechwriter Guy Snodgrass. That Army, through its National Guard troops, is engaged at Trump's order in helping protect federal buildings and Los Angeles and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials as they continue their crackdown on migrants expected of being in the country illegally. The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles is justified and was approved by the voters who elected Trump. Trump, Driscoll said, is doing exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. 'Our system was designed for exactly these moments,' Driscoll said. 'The reason we have presidential elections, the reason so many Americans turned out in November to support our president, Donald J. Trump, was for exactly these kinds of moments. If you look at the four-year period when President Trump was out of office, I think the American people didn't want violence in their communities.' The National Guard soldiers deployed to Los Angeles are talented, well trained and 'excited' about being there, Driscoll said. The Department of Homeland Security has asked the Pentagon for more than 20,000 additional National Guard troops for law enforcement support for its immigration crackdowns. More: Trump wants 20,000 troops to hunt, transport immigrants. Cost estimate: $3.6 billion Driscoll said he hasn't been briefed on the request but that the Army is ready to operate inside U.S. borders in legally appropriate ways. 'If the president feels, in consultation with the rest of the administration leadership, that is the best use of our National Guard, the Army stands by to support,' Driscoll said. On a separate issue, Driscoll talked about what he considers to be the top lethal threat to soldiers. Cheap, weaponized drones have become the weapon of choice in the war between Russia and Ukraine. Driscoll wants the Army to lead the Pentagon's effort to counteract drones. 'It's the number one thing we talk about every single day,' Driscoll said. Ukraine stunned Russia with a drone attack on its strategic warplanes. 'That should send fear into the hearts of armies around the world,' Driscoll said. 'A solution that was tens of thousands of dollars and pretty cleverly done over six months with very little signature to catch. It took out multiple billions of dollars of equipment, and that threat is real, and that threat is one that is being faced by every country.' Is the Pentagon better prepared than Russia for such an attack? 'I don't know,' Driscoll said. 'Hope so.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Army's $40 million parade: 'Once-in-lifetime opportunity'
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mark Cuban Thinks This Seemingly Small Money Problem Cost Kamala Harris the Election — Will It Wreck Your Finances?
Billionaire investor, entrepreneur, and 'Shark Tank' personality Mark Cuban is well-known both for his business acumen as well as his commentary on contemporary political issues. Read More: Find Out: In a recent interview held with New York Magazine's Benjamin Hart, Cuban covered a wide range of topics, from artificial intelligence to basketball. Of particular note, Cuban discussed the rising popularity of cryptocurrency and how former Vice President — and 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidate — Kamala Harris may have lost the election via her positioning on the issue. What can everyday Americans take away from Cuban's take on cryptocurrency, politics, and how digital currency could impact their finances? Here's what he thinks. As Hart offered up questions to Cuban, the latter eventually pivoted to discuss what he believed to be a major flaw in the Democrats' messaging. 'Like I said, the Republican Party is now the Trump family business. There's other things he got right, and I think what cost Kamala the election was crypto,' Cuban said. 'I can't tell you how many Democrats have agreed with me, not that that matters. There's data that says more than 40 percent of young men of color under the age of 29 own crypto. Kids today — their banking is different than you and I growing up,' he added. Cuban went on to suggest a scenario in which many young men of color download Coinbase or Robinhood and start stocking up on a small cryptocurrency portfolio. In this case, heavily weighted toward meme coins such as Dogecoin, while still buying a small position in bitcoin. 'Now, if you have two parties, and one says, 'I believe in this. I'm going to make it easier.' Translation: your net worth is going up,' said Cuban. 'The other party — Biden's SEC chief, Gary Gensler, and I said this on Twitter and to his face, I said, 'You are going to cost Kamala the election.' He said, 'Well, that's not part of my job. I don't care.' Every day, he was saying [expletive] that pushed down the price of crypto.' Cuban concluded his take on cryptocurrency's impact on the election by pointing to a potential 248,000 swing votes across seven states, citing exit polls that showed a significant number of younger men of color switched their vote to support President Donald Trump. Discover Next: Cuban has been cautiously enthusiastic over some cryptocurrencies, notably established industry players such as bitcoin and ethereum, for some time, most recently suggesting (via X, in April) that a bitcoin buy-in may be a better value play than buying into the stock market, at least at that time. And a bit earlier this year, in February, Cuban was cited as referring to solid bitcoin investment as a wildcard addition to one's overall holdings. 'If you're a true adventurer and you really wanna throw the hail Mary, you might take 10 percent, put it in bitcoin or ethereum,' Cuban stated at the time, per Benzinga — but with one major caveat concerning risk. 'If you do that, you've gotta pretend you've already lost your money,' he added, likening the holding to something like rare art, or collectible sports cards. 'It's a flyer … but I'd limit it to 10 percent.' The potential lesson, according to the famous businessman? While Bitcoin and other established cryptocurrencies may be worthy of being held in one's portfolio as a small piece of the overall puzzle, over-reliance on them, or investing heavily in less reputable meme coins or alt coins, could be a disastrous game plan. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks Mark Cuban Tells Americans To Stock Up on Consumables as Trump's Tariffs Hit -- Here's What To Buy This article originally appeared on Mark Cuban Thinks This Seemingly Small Money Problem Cost Kamala Harris the Election — Will It Wreck Your Finances? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
