Tweet
Signal is used by journalists and Washington officials because of the secure nature of its communications, the ability to create aliases, and sent disappearing messages.
LOL.
-
LOL.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry. -
We should all check if we're part of this group chat. You never know
BlahComment
-
They're all so afraid to disagree with Trump publicly that they created an illegal chat room to discuss policy and didn't invite himComment
-
During the Clinton Email scandal...
“Any security professional, military, government or otherwise, would be fired on the spot for this type of conduct and criminally prosecuted for being so reckless with this kind of information,†Hegseth said.
However, the response by everybody this time seems to be **** happens and the journalist is the bad guy.
Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges
​
Republican lawmakers are setting their sights on the judiciary following court rulings that have halted Trump's agenda.
​
WASHINGTON — Facing pressure from his right flank to take on judges who have ruled against President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Tuesday floated the possibility of Congress eliminating some federal courts.
It’s the latest attack from Republicans on the federal judiciary, as courts have blocked a series of actions taken by the Trump administration. In addition to funding threats, Trump and his conservative allies have called for the impeachment of certain federal judges who have ruled against him, most notably U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to halt Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants.
​
“We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things,†Johnson told reporters on Tuesday. “But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.â€
Johnson, a former constitutional attorney, later clarified that he was making a point about Congress’ “broad authority†over the “creation, maintenance and the governance†of the courts. Article III of the Constitution established the Supreme Court but gave Congress the power to “ordain and establish†lower federal courts.
Congress has eliminated courts in the past. In 1913, for example, Congress abolished the Commerce Court and its judges were redistributed to the federal appeals court, according to Congress.gov. And in 1982, Congress passed legislation abolishing the Article III Court of Claims and U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and established the Article I Court of Federal Claims and the Article III U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who plans to hold a hearing focused on Boasberg and district judges next week, said he’s speaking with GOP appropriators about what he called “legislative remedies.â€
“We got money, spending, the appropriations process to help try to address some of this,†Jordan said, without adding further details.
Attempts to defund courts will be a major flashpoint in bipartisan funding negotiations for the next fiscal year. But Republicans are a long way from making good on these threats.
First, they would need to convince powerful senior appropriators to strip funding for certain courts in their funding bill, in this case the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill that funds the lower courts.
But the appropriations subcommittee that oversees that funding bill is chaired by Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, a former prosecutor, self-described pragmatist and one of the more moderate members of the House GOP conference.
​
On top of that, House Republicans would need near-unanimous agreement to pass a funding bill that defunded some courts on the floor, which would be a difficult feat given their narrow majority.
The Senate also would almost certainly reject any funding bill or package that defunded the courts. To pass it, Senate Republicans would need at least seven Democrats to join them to defeat a filibuster. And some Republicans might vote against such a proposal.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said eliminating a district court would create "massive, massive backlogs"
"My view is, I'd like to get more Republican judges on the bench," Hawley said. "If we take away seats, we can't do that."
House and Senate appropriators will be working to pass 12 funding bills before the next government shutdown deadline, at the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
Despite Tuesday's remarks, Johnson appears to be focused on a middle path to push back on federal rulings against Trump as some GOP hard-liners push for impeachment votes against some judges.
In addition to the House Judiciary Committee's upcoming hearing, Johnson said the House will vote next week on a bill from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., that would bar district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.
“The judges, especially we’re talking about district court judges, are overstepping their boundaries,†Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., a Johnson ally, told NBC News. “Absolutely, I appreciate†the Issa bill, he added, “and I may go for more, but right now, that’s where I stand.â€
​
I am not delusional! Now if you'll excuse me, i'm gonna go dance with the purple wombat who's playing show-tunes in my coffee cup!
Rules are like Egg's. They're fun when thrown out the window!
Difference is irrelevant when dosage is higher than recommended!Comment
-
Trump signs order aimed at overhauling US elections
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that aims to overhaul US federal elections, including by requiring voters to show proof of citizenship and limiting when states can receive mail-in ballots.
Experts warn the move could disenfranchise millions of Americans who do not have easy access to a passport or other legal documents proving they have the right to vote.
It is unclear how enforceable the order is, given US states have wide legal leeway to determine how they run their elections. It is expected to be challenged in court.
The order, titled "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections", was signed by Trump on Tuesday at the White House.
​ "Election fraud. You've heard the term. We're going to end it, hopefully. At least this will go a long way toward ending it," Trump said as he signed the order on Tuesday.
The order says that the US has failed "to enforce basic and necessary election protections" and calls on states to co-operate with the the White House or risk losing access to federal funding if they do not require proof of citizenship.
It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in elections.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections.
Every state is required to use a common registration form that requires people to confirm they are US citizens, under penalty of perjury for false claims, but does not require documentary proof.
Experts say there have been very few cases of immigrants voting illegally in US elections.
The order also seeks to bar states from accepting postal ballots received after election day. Currently, 18 states allow ballots to be received after election day as long as they were mailed on or before the day of the vote.
The order would withdraw federal funding for US states that do not comply.
Trump has been accused of spreading election misinformation, including by claiming that "millions" of illegal immigrants voted in his first election campaign. He also continues to deny that he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
Previous efforts to pass a voter ID law in Congress have failed.
Democrats who have criticised similar past reform attempts have pointed to statistics showing that a large number of Americans do not have an enhanced drivers licence or passport for ID.
The legal basis for the order is expected to be challenged in court.
"The president cannot override a statute passed by Congress that says what is required to register to vote on the federal voter registration form," Wendy Weiser, from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, told the Washington Post.
UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said on his blog that elections are largely run by each individual state government, and that if allowed to stand, the order would radically shift power to the federal government.
I am not delusional! Now if you'll excuse me, i'm gonna go dance with the purple wombat who's playing show-tunes in my coffee cup!
Rules are like Egg's. They're fun when thrown out the window!
Difference is irrelevant when dosage is higher than recommended!Comment
-
Is there anything that corroborates Goldberg's assertion that the OP article describing his invitation to the signal group used for discussion of the attacks is real? It's obvious that the incompetency bar required for this is routinely limbo'ed with ample clearance by members of this administration but it's hard to believe Goldberg would be on many email lists of any kind in those Trumpian circles.Comment
-
The perfect response to this would be a mass effort to assist disadvantaged Americans in acquiring legal identification. This would be asset for them regardless starting now well ahead of the 2026 elections would be prudent.Originally posted by Broken_Erika View PostComment
-
Yes there is plenty of corroboration.Originally posted by Geronimo View Post
They all admitted Goldberg was in the chat. They are relying on denying that it was classified information.
The full text of the chat is out now too if you want to read it.Comment
-
More than that, Waltz was saying Goldberg defrauded his way in by using technology to edit his contact list.Originally posted by Aeson View Post
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
“So of course, I didn’t see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else. Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened by some other technical means is something we’re trying to figure out.â€
--- Mike Waltz​
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
"We are currently clean on OPSEC" is my favourite line
​BlahComment
-
That was a typo, he meant that they were completely clean of opsec. As in, didn't have anyOriginally posted by BeBMan View Post"We are currently clean on OPSEC" is my favourite line
​
Indifference is BlissComment
Comment