<In the wake of revelations about Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to disclose a forgiven loan in excess of a quarter million dollars, one legal ethics expert believes the longtime judge feels emboldened to act with impunity.

Earlier this week, a Senate Finance Committee investigation found that Justice Thomas' previous financial disclosure statements omitted what was effectively a gift from wealthy businessman Anthony Welters: A luxury recreational vehicle worth approximately $267,000. While Thomas made several interest payments on the loan, it remains unclear how much of the original loan principal was paid before it was forgiven.

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, who specializes in legal ethics, recently told Reuters that he believes Thomas' pattern of failing to disclose significant gifts from wealthy benefactors is no accident.

"Thomas's votes can send someone to prison for life or financially destroy them for breaking the law," Gillers said. "Yet he repeatedly breaks the law, confident that he is immune to consequences."

While Thomas has previously been subjected to scrutiny over various gifts from conservative billionaire Harlan Crow, another legal ethics expert said the RV loan was "more significant than the past failures."

"There isn't even a plausible excuse this time," Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet told Reuters. "The directions could not be more clear. It's a quarter of a million dollars — it's hard to attribute that to inadvertence."

In addition to law professors, Thomas' behavior has also not gone unnoticed by his colleagues in the judicial profession. Nancy Gertner, a retired former US District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, recently wrote an essay for WBUR detailing how Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society helped Thomas and other conservative judges skate around a longstanding ethics statute preventing judges from accepting compensation for speeches and pubic [sic] appearances.

"No new ethical rules need to be promulgated, or codes enacted on this subject. It exists right now, as it has since 1989," Gertner wrote. "But Thomas and Leo are doing an end run around it, accomplishing indirectly what the law prohibits them from doing directly. And no one is stopping them.">

<The editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch dropped the hammer on House Republicans for making Rep. Michael Johnson (R-LA) the new speaker, pointing out that his attempts to help Donald Trump subvert the 2020 presidential election should disqualify him from public office.

In a biting editorial published on Friday, the board pointed to a post-speaker election press availability when a raucous assemblage of far-right House colleagues shouted down a reporter's question about Johnson's part in trying to undercut the will of the voters and keep Donald Trump in office.

As the editors noted, they disagree with Johnson's stand on just about everything — but that shouldn't be disqualifying.

What is disqualifying, they wrote, was his attempt to undermine democracy by taking the lead in the House in a plot to steal the election.

Calling the press conference where Rep. Virginia Fox (R-NC) repeatedly shouted "shut up" at the reporter "a disgraceful display of political arrogance," the editors added it was "a reminder that most of the GOP House majority still doesn’t get it."

"The entire attempt to overturn the 2020 election was an illegitimate, arguably criminal, demonstrably dangerous attack on Americans’ fundamental right to have their votes counted. Any involvement in it at all should be politically disqualifying. Instead, one of democracy’s assailants now has one of America’s biggest gavels," they accused.

"True conservatives, who traditionally care about rule of law and fealty to the Constitution, should consider that the House is now led by a man who assertively attempted to disenfranchise millions of voters at the behest of a president determined to hold onto power despite having been voted out of office," they continued before concluding, "That is not conservative at all. And it should give pause to anyone, of any party or political philosophy, who values democracy."

You can watch a clip of the "disgraceful' press conference below.>

<A vote by the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Senate last month to fire the state's nonpartisan top elections official had no legal effect, and lawmakers are barred from ousting her while a lawsuit plays out, a Dane County judge ruled on Friday.

Administrator Meagan Wolfe will continue serving as head of the Wisconsin Elections Commission pending a decision on whether elections commissioners are legally required to appoint someone for the Senate to confirm, Judge Ann Peacock said.

Senate Republicans voted in September to fire Wolfe, despite objections from Democrats and the Legislature's own nonpartisan attorneys, who said the Senate didn't have the authority to vote at that time.

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul sued to challenge that vote, and in court filings earlier this month, Republican legislative leaders changed course and claimed their vote to fire Wolfe was merely “symbolic” and had no legal effect. They also asked Peacock to order the elections commission to appoint an administrator for the Senate to vote on.

“This injunction provides needed certainty and should resolve any confusion resulting from the Legislature’s actions,” Kaul said in a statement.

An attorney representing GOP legislative leaders in the lawsuit did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on Friday.

The bipartisan elections commission deadlocked in June on a vote to reappoint Wolfe. The three Republican commissioners voted in favor, but the three Democrats abstained to block the nomination from going before the Senate. Actions by the commission require a four-vote majority.

GOP lawmakers have accused the Democratic elections commissioners of neglecting their duty by not voting, and the Senate retaliated by rejecting confirmation for Democratic Commissioner Joseph Czarnezki this month, effectively firing him. But Democrats argue the commission is not required to make an appointment and that Wolfe can stay in office indefinitely as a holdover under a recent Supreme Court ruling that Republicans have used to maintain control of policy boards.

Wolfe has been the subject of conspiracy theories and targeted by threats from election skeptics who falsely claim she was part of a plot to rig the 2020 vote in favor of President Joe Biden. Biden defeated Donald Trump in 2020 by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin, an outcome that has withstood two partial recounts, a nonpartisan audit, a conservative law firm’s review, and multiple state and federal lawsuits.

The fight over who will run the battleground state's elections agency has caused instability ahead of the 2024 presidential race for Wisconsin's more than 1,800 local clerks who actually run elections. Peacock said her order on Friday would maintain the status quo.

“I agree with WEC that the public expects stability in its elections system and this injunction will provide stability pending the Court’s final decision,” she wrote.>

<The new House speaker wants to pursue impeachment charges based on baseless corruption claims against President Joe Biden but there's just one problem: U.S. Rep James Comer (R-KY) wants to be done with the hearings.

“I don’t know that I want to hold any more hearings, to be honest with you,” said Comer, Chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee leading the impeachment charge. He said he preferred depositions, which “you can do more with.”

That didn't stop Johnson from taking to the airwaves Thursday night for his first interview as Speaker of the House to introduce himself and his priorities to the nation with an exclusive interview [sic] Sean Hannity.

“If in fact all the evidence leads to where we believe it will, that’s very likely impeachable offenses,” Johnson said. “I believe the documents are proving all that. The bank records don’t lie.”

Johnson was prompted by Hannity, whom the Washington Post notes has spent months peddling corruption theories based on scant evidence a recent FactCheck report notes has been “cherry-picked” by Comer.

“You have the issue of Joe on tape admitting that he used our money, taxpayer money, to leverage $1 billion in loan guarantees,” Hannity said, “which was Obama administration policy, to fire a prosecutor investigating his son.”

Johnson might have noted Biden was discussing a corrupt prosecutor who was not investigating his son, but he did not.

“That’s a pretty good recitation of the facts,” Johnson said. “I know people…just want somebody to be impeached.”

If viewers didn’t get a clear understanding of the case, or lack thereof, against Biden, they got an answer to one pressing question.

Yes, the new speaker supports impeachment, even if, at the moment, Comer does not want more hearings.>

<For the first time in weeks, the House has a permanent speaker, and can finally move forward with time-sensitive legislation. Exactly what new House Speaker Mike Johnson will bring to the floor — and what he plans to either delay or bypass — is coming into focus, as Washington gets to know a relatively low-profile member whose prior experience in leadership in Congress was his role as deputy whip.

Congress faces a variety of pressing concerns in the near term: government funding runs out in mid-November, and there is bipartisan support for providing financial support to Israel against Hamas. Johnson suggested that there may be conditions attached to legislation he'll put on the floor in the coming weeks.

Israel funding

The first action the House took after Johnson was sworn in as speaker was to pass a resolution affirming support for Israel, a symbolic gesture. But Johnson says the House will bring to the floor a standalone bill providing about $14.5 billion in supplemental aid to Israel, the same figure that was requested by the White House. However, Johnson told Fox News' Sean Hannity Thursday that he wanted that spending to be offset, which may prompt some opposition.

"We're going to find pay-fors in the budget," he told Hannity. "We're not just printing money to send it overseas. We're going to find the cuts elsewhere to do that."

That bill is expected to come to the House floor soon.

Ukraine funding

Johnson, like many other House Republicans, seems less likely to move as quickly on military aid to Ukraine, despite the Pentagon's recent warning to lawmakers that Ukraine funding is running low.

He told Hannity that aid to Israel and Ukraine must be separate items, after President Biden requested a supplemental package that would provide aid to both at the same time.

"I told the staff at the White House today that our consensus among House Republicans is that we need to bifurcate those issues," Johnson told Hannity.

Still, Johnson told the Fox News host the U.S. "can't allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine because I don't believe it would stop there."

Government funding

Johnson has expressed his distaste for continuing resolutions, or short-term funding bills when Congress can't agree on comprehensive ones. Government funding currently runs out on Nov. 17.

He would like the House to pass individual spending bills for the full fiscal year, but he told Hannity Republicans are working to make sure that if a stopgap bill to keep the government open past Nov. 17 is required, "we do it with certain conditions." He did not say what those conditions would be.

Conservatives have long expressed frustration with keeping government spending at current levels and want to make cuts....>

<....Gun control

The deadly mass shooting perpetrated by a suspect in Maine this week hasn't changed Johnson's mind on gun control. He is a staunch defender of gun owners' rights and remains opposed to considering further steps to restrict access to guns.

"At the end of the day, the problem is the human heart," Johnson told Hannity. "It's not guns, not the weapons. At the end of the day, we have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves and that's the Second Amendment."

Johnson said it's not the right time to talk about legislation related to gun control, although he expects discussions later, including on addressing mental health.

Like the vast majority of House Republicans, Johnson voted against a 2022 bill tightening access to guns for some populations. The bill did receive bipartisan support.

Gay marriage

In his conversation with Hannity, Johnson indicated he would had no plans to try to move legislation opposing gay marriage, saying, "This has been settled by the Supreme Court" in its 2015 Obergefell opinion. The high court ruled that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

"So, that's the decision," Johnson said. "... I'm a constitutional law attorney — I respect that, and we move forward."

Last year, with bipartisan support, the House passed a bill protecting same-sex and interracial marriages at the federal level. The bill, which had previously passed the Senate with bipartisan support, was signed into law.

Abortion

Johnson, who spent years fighting against abortion rights as a lawyer for a conservative Christian advocacy group, appeared to distance himself from the idea of a federal abortion ban for now, although some of the most conservative members of Congress and several GOP presidential candidates favor a national ban. He suggested that abortion bans may best be left to the states.

"We argued my entire career for 25 years that the states should have the right to do this. There's no national consensus among the people on what to do with that issue on a federal level, for certain. We have such big priorities in this moment right now," Johnson told Hannity, pointing to other matters like Israel and Ukraine.

Changing the motion to vacate that resulted in McCarthy's removal as speaker

Johnson didn't go into detail on whether or how he would propose changing the current "motion to vacate" rule, a rule that enabled a single member, Rep. Matt Gaetz, to force a no-confidence vote in former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

"I think we're going to change it," Johnson told Hannity.>

<Former US President Donald Trump has stated that he will still run for president even if he goes to prison.

Donald Trump noted, correctly, that this is not constitutionally prevented.

Indeed, a socialist candidate for the presidency, Eugene Debbs [sic], ran for president from jail. Importantly though, Debbs stood no chance of winning. He was a socialist in a country with no tradition for that, and his prison sentence turned on his opposition to a popular war which the US won (World War I). Debbs received just a million votes. As a third-party candidate, Debbs lost much possible [sic] to support the large party – the Democrats – closest to his views.

Trump, by contrast, is the leading contender for the presidency of one of America’s only two competitive parties. That automatically puts him within striking distance of the presidency. Tens of millions of partisans will vote for Trump out of general ideological conviction for his party – the Republicans. The specific circumstances of the candidate will not dissuade them.

And Trump enjoys a unique, cult-like bond with his voters. They will not be put off from voting for Trump even if he is in prison. Trump’s opponent, Democratic President Joe Biden, could have a scandal or otherwise slip in the race. In short, there is a decent chance Trump could win the presidency even if he were in prison.

An Imprisoned President Could Not Govern

As so often, Trump raises bizarre, unanticipated new concerns in US politics. His repeated, egregious law-breaking has forced the country to investigate him even though the national inclination is to let ex-presidents off-the-hook for otherwise controversial elements of their presidencies. Former President Richard Nixon vastly abused the presidency but was allowed to retire unmolested with the tacit understanding he would never return to politics. Trump has abjured this generosity. His refusal to go quietly has forced the current series of investigations into his presidency and post-presidency.

A Trump presidency from jail raises even more outlandish, awkward questions. If the country’s inclination is to avoid investigating ex-presidents, it is even more inclined not to imprison them. There is simply no historical precedent at all for a president governing from prison. That logistics of that are so bizarre and unwieldy that a Trump presidential victory would almost certainly require his release to take the presidency. The job could not be done otherwise....>

<....That would require some unique act of clemency by the court which imprisoned him. That would be remarkable, creating a huge, bizarre judicial precedent. One could easily imagine all sorts of other prisoners insisting that their unique professional or personal commitments should get them out of prison too. Such an act would almost certainly be appealed. The case would then almost certainly land before the Supreme Court which would be forced into the genuinely extreme choice of either letting a convicted felon out of prison for political, not legal, reasons, or denying the presidency to the victor.

The choice would almost certainly be the former. If Trump wins but is blocked from taking the presidency, the country would face a constitutional crisis and almost certain political violence. But this choice would also create a precedent that presidents are effectively above the law. This is a truly extreme, awful scenario.

Donald Trump Would Try to Self-Pardon

The other scenario for Donald Trump to escape his sentence would be for him to ‘self-pardon.’ Trump would use the pardon power of the presidency on himself. He could immediately exonerate himself and let himself out of prison. Like the Supreme Court granting him some unique manner of clemency, this too would be a huge and controversial precedent.

The pardon was not, obviously, created for such a circumstance. It serves to give the president unique authority to alter sentences that are manifestly unjust or grossly inhibit the national interest. Modern presidents, of course, abuse this. They routinely pardon friends, allies, and others who get into trouble. This inappropriateness has been tolerated so long as it was limited and not too egregious.

But, as so often with Trump, Trump exploits existing leeway for presidents to bend the law in order to openly break the law. Despite the country’s inclination to look the other way, Trump’s violations are so expansive that he forces a reaction. In this case, no president has ever pardoned himself, not even Nixon. No one even knows if a ‘self-pardon’ actually exists, if it is a legal thing the president can act on. If Trump tried it, it too would almost certainly be litigated and provoke a massive constitutional crisis.

If Donald Trump Is Convicted, He Should Quit the Race

The country has shown Trump extraordinary forbearance. He has engaged in inappropriate behavior for years without facing punishment. Rather the gracefully accepting this generosity and exiting politics as Nixon did, Trump has always pushed even further, forcing even more anguished constitutional discussions about presidential misbehavior.

If Trump goes to jail but wins, he will push the country into truly bizarre, frighteningly divisive constitutional uncertainty. If it really comes to that, he should finally retire from politics. But he will not, and no one knows what will come next.>

<.George Conway's Maga Commandments: <1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, except thou shalt followeth thy Orange Jesus over any moral cliff.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless thou shalt have purchaseth it on http://DonaldJTrump.com.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, except when thou shalt attacketh Brandon or thy RINOs.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy, unless thou attendeth a musical production in Denver.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother, and burieth thy mother on thy father’s golf course.

6. Thou shalt not kill, but thou shalt shooteth looters on sight, and puteth alligators in thy moat to keepeth out the Mexicans.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery, but if thou shalt do so with thy porn star, thou shalt payeth her off through an intermediary and falsifieth thy accounting records.

8. Thou shalt not steal, unless thou needeth to steeleth one moreth than a certain number of popular votes or unless thou can hideth thy stollen documents at thy bathroom in thy resort.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness. LOL.

<Donald Trump wants to reveal classified information when he goes on trial for allegedly trying to steal the 2020 presidential election, his latest court submissions show.

Trump wants to introduce classified information about how foreign governments tried to influence the election and his efforts to stop it.

By doing so, Trump wants to establish that he was not trying to steal the 2020 election, as prosecutors have claimed, but was trying to protect the integrity of the election.

Legal arguments over including classified material could add months of delays to the case. This case is just one of four that he's involved in. He's pleaded not guilty and maintained his innocence in all four cases.

Newsweek has sought comment via email from Trump's legal team.

The submission before Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., on Thursday states that Trump "will offer classified information at trial relating to foreign influence activities that impacted the 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as efforts by his administration to combat those activities."

"President Trump will also present classified information relating to the biased and politicized nature of the intelligence assessments that he and others rejected during the events in question," it reads.

It also states that his legal team has already alerted an office that handles classified information requests to inform them that Trump will need classified documents at trial.

His legal team's submission states that, between the classified information on foreign interference and the classified information on biased intelligence reports, "this evidence will undercut central theories of the prosecution and establish that President Trump acted at all times in good faith and on the belief that he was doing what he had been elected to do."

The submission notes that prosecutor, Jack Smith, has argued in legal submissions earlier this month that "the classified discovery issues" in this case are "limited," "tangential," "narrow," and "incidental" because "the charges...do not rely on classified materials."

"The Indictment in this case adopts classified assessments by the Intelligence Community and others that minimized, and at times ignored, efforts by foreign actors to influence and interfere with the 2020 election," Trump's lawyers wrote.

The submissions by Trump's attorneys John F. Lauro and Todd Blanche come on the same day that Smith's team was complaining, in a separate federal case, that Trump's legal team took 11 days to begin reviewing classified material allegedly found at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Trump has pleaded not guilty before a Florida federal court to hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

In that Florida submission, Smith's team complained that Trump's lawyers are accusing prosecutors of not producing the classified documents fast enough while delaying their inspection of those same documents at a specially fitted secure room in Miami.

"Despite defendant Trump's accusations, defense counsel was hardly in a rush to review the Government's latest production of classified discovery," he wrote in a document submitted to federal judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday.

Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race. Several legal commentators claim he is trying to delay his criminal trials so that he can exonerate himself if reelected president.

Preet Bharara, a former federal prosecutor, said that Trump likely has three options to avoid his two federal trials: pardoning himself, appointing a favorable attorney general, or claiming federal immunity.

Speaking on his Spotify podcast Stay Tuned With Preet, earlier this month, Bharara claimed that Trump is trying to delay his trials until after the presidential election and, if elected, try to escape the charges.>

<The inflammatory language targeting a reproductive rights measure on Ohio's fall ballot is the type of messaging that is common in the closing weeks of a highly contested initiative campaign — warning of “abortion on demand” or “dismemberment of fully conscious children” if voters approve it.

Only the messaging isn’t just coming from the anti-abortion groups that oppose the constitutional amendment. It’s being promoted on the official government website of the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate.

And because the source is a government website, the messaging is being prioritized in online searches for information about Issue 1, the question going before Ohio voters Nov. 7 to enshrine abortion access in the state Constitution.

The “On The Record” blog on the state Senate website is billed as an “online newsroom” presenting “the views the news excludes.” It features attacks against Ohio news outlets, op-ed style columns by Republican state senators and content generated by members of the Senate majority’s communications staff and other noted conservatives.

“Be confident that here you will find a place for facts, values, and reason,” read the announcement when Republican lawmakers launched the feature in September, shortly after Ohio voters rejected a Republican attempt to make it far more difficult to pass constitutional amendments.

Groups backing the proposed amendment say it’s an improper use of a taxpayer-supported website, while experts who study online misinformation said the effort by Republican lawmakers appeared unprecedented.

“It’s a really strategic way to make something appear to be neutral information and fact when that’s not the reality,” said Laura Manley, executive director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. “I’ve never seen anything like that. It’s really smart in a really devious way.”

In recent weeks, “On The Record” has turned its attention to denouncing Issue 1, the only statewide abortion question before voters in the November elections. Among claims asserted in one senator's article are that the measure would “ legalize abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy " and allow for “ the dismemberment of fully conscious children.” Another senator's entry repeats without context a decades-old narrative that high rates of abortion among Black women are driven by an “evil” and “predatory” abortion industry.

A featured snippet grabbed from the site that comes up during a Google search for Ohio Issue 1 says the measure “ignores Ohio’s existing exceptions for life and health of the mother in favor of establishing abortion on demand for all nine months.”

Legal and medical experts consulted by The Associated Press have called these narratives false or misleading....>

<....The proposed amendment expressly allows Ohio to regulate abortions once a fetus is viable outside the womb, as long as there are exceptions for the life or health of the woman. Ohio's existing ban on most abortions once fetal cardiac activity is detected, now held up in court, has an exception for protecting the life of the woman as well as a more narrowly tailored health exception than Issue 1 contains. Under the existing law passed by Republicans, abortions would be allowed only when there would be "a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

Opponents argue that Issue 1's health exception, in particular, would allow for a virtual free-for-all for abortion doctors after viability, since the U.S. Supreme Court has defined “health” to include mental health and aspects of life that affect it. Physicians say the scenario is inconsistent with the standards they uphold for professional conduct.

Because the Ohio Senate is a government entity, supporters of the constitutional amendment worry that content posted to “On The Record” might be interpreted by voters as a source of objective information. Under Google's search quality evaluator guidelines, government sites are generally given added weight on the grounds that they present trustworthy, verifiable, authoritative content in the interest of the common good.

“My (Republican) colleagues say that this is done because the mainstream media won’t print their stuff. But of course, the mainstream media won’t pick this up because it’s factually incorrect and basically lies,” said Democratic state Sen. Bill DeMora, whose caucus was angered by the blog and its home on the Senate's official page.

He said Democrats are exploring whether they can launch their own version to counter the GOP.

Republican Senate President Matt Huffman shied away from labeling “On the Record” a news service when questioned by reporters shortly after its launch.

“I think it’s just the latest iteration of trying to communicate with the public,” he said.

As of Friday, the blog was the only link available under the “News” tab for the Ohio Senate. In comparison, the website for the Republican-led Ohio House features press releases on its signature bills, and awards and activities related to both Republican and Democratic lawmakers....>

<.....John Fortney, spokesman for the state Senate's majority Republicans, said "On The Record” doesn’t cost the public anything because it’s hosted on an existing government platform and is put together by his staff.

But neither his staff nor the government platform are free.

Fortney and his senior press secretary, Garth Kant, make a combined $195,000 a year, according to a database of public salaries maintained by the Buckeye Institute. The blog they spearhead is maintained by Legislative Information Services, an IT office for both of Ohio's legislative chambers with a $13 million annual budget.

A detailed analysis of “On The Record” by a group supporting the constitutional amendment shows “no distinguishable difference” between the blog and the Senate site, meaning they use the same resources.

Britt Bischoff, chief growth officer for Red Wine & Blue, a progressive women’s organization, said the group has been trying to outcompete misinformation around issue 1 with its own messages, but the weight given to government websites in searches makes it difficult to counter the messages spread through “On the Record.”

“While Google has been responsive in removing some results for search terms where (misinformation posts) have been flagged, it’s not 100%, and there are hundreds of search terms this page is targeting that deliberately targets questions around Issue 1 with intentional attempts to spread political ideologies in positions of authority,” Bischoff's analysis determined.

Google did not return an email message seeking comment about its search priorities.

Fortney pushed back against the criticism. He said the op-ed style pieces are “clearly opinion,” though nowhere are they marked as such, and that “On The Record” is intended to promote the views of Senate Republicans that, in many cases, Ohio media outlets have refused to publish.

“People are free to disagree with the views expressed, but this is content that you won’t find anywhere else, certainly not in legacy media," he said. “It's relevant content for our audience.”

Mary Ruth Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said it’s common for politicians to have close relationships with advocacy organizations on either side of the abortion debate, but the Ohio Senate’s blog “crosses a line" because it's on a government website that the public would see as providing neutral information.

“There’s a difference between delivering a campaign speech to an anti-abortion group and putting these kinds of narratives on an official government website that’s designed to inform voters,” said Ziegler, a leading historian on the abortion debate. “Your responsibilities there are different.”>

<Right now, there is an internal war raging inside the Republican Party that is an ideological battle for its heart and soul.

Progressives should be optimistic about this internal strife, and not just because it signifies a divided right-wing going into the coming presidential election. The failure of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) — a man known as a “hardline conservative agitator” and a Trump loyalist — to claim the House speaker position was the result of a Republican resistance to Jordan’s MAGA philosophy. The moderate wing of the party took a principled stance that risked their careers, and they emerged victorious.

While swaths of the world from Ukraine to Israel and Gaza are in utter chaos, our legislative branch is completely dysfunctional. All that aside, this scenario does offer progressives a glimmer of hope, and also raises a question: Why the sudden backbone from these Republicans? What is the psychology underlying their defiance, and how can we capitalize on this effort to curb ring-wing extremism and limit Trump’s political influence?

The social psychology theory known as Terror Management Theory (TMT) has an answer to that. According to this theory, humans have an awareness of their own mortality that creates deep existential terror. We deal with this persistent fear by adopting cultural worldviews — religions, national identities, political ideologies — which infuse our lives with meaning and purpose. By becoming part of an idea and a movement that is larger than oneself, that will outlive the individual, we manage our existential terror.

If this is true, things that remind us of our mortality or create existential terror will cause people to cling more strongly to their cultural worldviews. When this happens, they will also tend to side with those who share their worldview and more fiercely oppose those that appear against it.

If we do indeed adopt cultural worldviews to curb a fear of death — as Terror Management Theory posits — then perceived threats to our worldview should also prompt us to strengthen faith in our worldviews and become more tribal....>

<.....An interesting experiment from 1998, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, illustrates this phenomenon. The experimenters asked participants to write about either their own death or a control topic and then presented them with a target person who either disparaged their political views or did not. Afterward, they gave them the opportunity to choose the amount of hot sauce the offender must consume. As predicted, participants who were made fearful by the writing exercise allocated significantly more hot sauce to the worldview-threatening target.

So, how does Terror Management Theory shed light on the resistance within the Republican party against figures such as Jordan and Trump?

The nomination of the previous House speaker, Republican Kevin McCarthy, who is known as more of a pragmatic legislator than an ideologue, showed where the majority stood. However, a rebellion led by hardline conservatives and Trump loyalists ousted McCarthy, seeking a more extreme replacement. With the headline, “McCarthy became the latest victim of Trump’s GOP revolution,” a CNN journalist wrote:

“A party that once defined conservatism as preserving a traditional sense of steadiness and strength has evolved over the last three decades into a haven for chaos agents, stunt politics and a perpetual ideological revolution that keeps driving it to new extremes.”

Jordan’s alignment with Trump and Trump’s 2020 election denial, as well as his hardline conservative stances and unwillingness to compromise, epitomizes the radical transformation of the Republican Party.

Veteran Republicans have long championed a distinct conservative worldview that emphasizes traditional American principles and practicality. For enough U.S. House members within the party, the politics and posturing of figures such as Trump and Jordan appeared to be a sharp departure from these deeply-held convictions, at least within the context of the House speaker’s saga. This opposition isn’t merely political or strategic — it's fundamentally about the preservation of the core values and principles that have been central to the Republican identity for decades.

The perceived existential threat to their traditional worldview posed by the radical movement, coupled with the very real threat to their political careers, triggered the worldview-defense response described by Terror Management Theory.

By opposing Jordan, these Republicans were reinforcing their worldview, their protective buffer against existential threats. When the worldview defense was triggered, the dynamics of group behavior and tribalism described by Terror Management Theory also emerged. Actions threatening a group’s core beliefs will prompt members of that group to bind together and remain true to their ideals.

After voting against Jordan, the members of the resistance received threats from Jordan supporters, who were almost all certainly Trump supporters, which increased the intensity of the overall perceived threat, further strengthening the worldview-threat response. Articles report that these Republicans "dug in their heels" after facing aggression, as Terror Management Theory would predict.

So, the story of Jim Jordan’s failed bid for speaker of the House teaches us a lot about the psychological and neural factors that at certain times can drive individuals to put the more traditional principles of their party and personal convictions above personal gain. This intriguing dynamic of values against vested interests offers valuable insights into how extremist political movements emerge and are then countered by a wave of resistance that maintains a balanced equilibrium.

This war going on within the Republican Party may symbolize a change in direction of the party, but only time will tell. Nine new speaker candidates emerged last weekend, with only two of them having voted to certify the 2020 presidential election. House Minority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) tried to win the gavel first and flamed out before even standing for an official vote.

In the meantime, progressives should be reminded of the old adage "The enemy of your enemy is your friend." Maybe progressives can find common ground with moderate Republicans on shared values and principles, bridging divides that have polarized the nation and building a coalition against Trump for the 2024 election.>

<During an interview with “War Room” founder Steve Bannon, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) revealed what he claims was a behind-the-scenes scheme of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to stamp out Speaker nominees such as Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Tom Emmer (R-MN), and Mike Johnson (R-LA).

Gaetz said the plan was brought to light in a private meeting.

Allegedly, Gaetz told Emmer that it would be difficult to win votes, and therefore should “play into what Kevin McCarthy was working the whole time to try to get people to believe that the only person that could govern the Republican conference is Kevin McCarthy.”

“So Emmer agrees that he’s going to have his shot, but that it’s going to be quick so we get that through the gestation system early yesterday,” Gaetz stated.

“So as Emmer is withdrawing, Marc Molinaro, a moderate New York freshman Republican stands up at the microphone and says, ‘well, instead of restarting this process and having a candidate forum,’ and sending everybody home for a good cry, let’s just take a non-binding poll on where people would be on the person who came in second to Tom Emmer. And that was Mike Johnson.”

Gaetz then explained that Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) told Molinaro that the vote would break rules, which lead [sic] him to push for an agreement among GOP reps to simply set aside the rules and cast a vote on Johnson’s backing.

“And guess who objects to that unanimous consent request? Kevin McCarthy,” Gaetz pressed.

“Kevin McCarthy stands up and erupts and says, ‘I object to doing a roll call on Mike Johnson.’ And Mike Johnson was exasperated. All the times he voted for McCarthy, carried his water, maybe voted for bills he didn’t like because he was working toward republican conference’s stated objectives under McCarthy.”

“It showed everyone that it was actually McCarthy who was working to knife Scalise. It was actually McCarthy who was working to knife Jim Jordan, it was McCarthy working to knife everyone, and he hadn’t yet figured out a way to knife Mike Johnson,” Gaetz added.

“And so he was worried that there was gonna be this great unifying moment and he scuttled the unifying moment. So because of McCarthy’s objection, we had to have this three hour delay and you know, candidates announce again, have another forum.”

Gaetz then revealed that House Speaker pro tempore Patrick McHenry (R-NC) had made a dash to bring the House out of recess.

“Now, why did he do that? Because they were setting up a play to block Mike Johnson with write-in votes in the intra-conference process for Kevin McCarthy. They were promising people hearings on their favorite legislation, passage of bills. I heard people promise, ‘oh, maybe you’ll get a chairmanship.’”

McCarthy’s scheme ultimately failed, with Mike Johnson winning the speakership following an unanimous GOP vote.>

<Former President Donald Trump continues to escalate his attacks on Judge Arthur Engoron, who is presiding over the fraud trial brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, RadarOnline.com has learned.

Trump's latest outbursts come after a series of legal setbacks in the case, including a $10,000 fine for violating a gag order.

Despite facing further punishment, Trump took to social media on Saturday to lash out at the judge and also criticize President Joe Biden, even though the trial has nothing to do with him.

Trump took to Truth Social to express his outrage over Judge Engoron's decision to have his daughter, Ivanka Trump, testify in person.

"My daughter, Ivanka, was released from this Fake Letitia James case by the Court of Appeals, but this Trump Hating, Unhinged Judge, who ruled me guilty before this Witch Hunt Trial even started, couldn’t care less about the fact that he was overturned," Trump wrote to his 6.3 million followers on Truth Social.

"I also won on Appeal on Statute of Limitations, but he refuses to accept their decision. I truly believe he is CRAZY, but certainly, at a minimum, CRAZED in his hatred of me. This case should have never started, but now must be dismissed. Financial Statements were LOW, NOT HIGH, had a 100% Disclaimer Clause, Banks were fully paid, 'on time, on schedule,' with never even a minor default, there was NO VICTIM, EXCEPT ME," he continued. "Any other Judge in the Country would have thrown this case out on day one."

"He’s an out of control 'Nut Job,' who fined me $10,000 over a ridiculous Gag Order so that the publicity for the day would take over from the fact that Racist James and the Judge’s Star Witness admitted LYING TO CONGRESS on the stand – CASE OVER!"

Less than two hours later, Trump posted another statement demanding that Judge Engoron be removed from the case.

He called the judge a "partisan political hack" who ignores the decisions of the Court of Appeals. Trump alleged that the New York State legal system has completely broken down and accused Letitia James of running a witch hunt against him.

The former president claimed that there were no crimes or victims in the case and insisted that a jury should be allowed. He also accused Judge Engoron of interfering in the election, referring to his valuations of Mar-a-Lago and other properties.

"This is a Biden Election Interference Scam! There were No Crimes and no Victims, and there is NO JURY ALLOWED," he wrote. "This Radical Trump Hater Must Be Taken Off This Case!"

Judge Engoron had previously denied a motion to dismiss the case based on Trump's claims about Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer. The decision reportedly led to Trump storming out of court in a dramatic fashion.>

<Former President Trump gave a stark warning to enemies of the U.S. at the Republican Jewish Coalition Conference Saturday.

“If you spill a drop of American blood, we will spill a gallon of yours,” the former president said during remarks.

Trump spoke at length about the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, which is escalating as Israel expanded its ground operation into the Gaza Strip Saturday. Concerns about civilians in Gaza, who have already been struggling with Israeli airstrikes and blackouts, among other difficulties, and what could happen to them amidst the Israeli incursion into Gaza, have been heightened.

“We have set two goals for this war: To eliminate Hamas by destroying its military and governing abilities and to do everything possible to bring our captives home. All Hamas terrorists are dead men walking — above ground, below ground, outside Gaza,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a speech earlier this week.

Trump also turned his verbal fire towards international college students and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), the only two Muslim women in Congress, for their pro-Palestinian views. He pledged to cancel the student visas of “Hamas sympathizers” on college campuses if reelected as president.

“I will cancel the student visas of Hamas sympathizers on college campuses,

Trump said. “The college campuses are being taken over.”

The United Nations (U.N.) Secretary-General called for a cease-fire in the conflict Saturday over the humanitarian concerns in Gaza.

“This situation must be reversed. I reiterate my strong appeal for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire, together with the unconditional release of hostages and a delivery of humanitarian relief at the level that corresponds to the dramatic needs of the people in Gaza, where a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in front of our eyes,” António Guterres said.>

<On August 16, 1867, a young farmer named Alfred McDonald Sargent Johnson walked into the courthouse of Cherokee County, Georgia. He had an oath to swear.

The effects of the Civil War were still visible in Canton, a village of about 200 people and the county seat. For one thing, that makeshift courthouse was inside a Presbyterian church—its predecessor having been torched by William Tecumseh Sherman’s men shortly before their march to the sea. For another, Georgia was still under military rule as federal officials debated how best to reconstruct the former Confederate states. How does a government reintegrate the men who, not that long ago, were engaged in a treasonous rebellion?

Johnson had, like many of his neighbors, taken up arms against the United States. At age 21, he’d joined Company F of the 3rd Georgia Cavalry. The Third had fought in the Chickamauga and Chattanooga campaigns, and Johnson had even been captured as a Union prisoner at New Haven, Kentucky. But he was just a foot soldier in a much larger war. Johnson had not grown up in a stereotypical plantation “big house”; his family’s farm was modest in size and census records do not list him or his father as having owned slaves. He ended the conflict as a private, just as he’d entered it. Johnson might not even have cared much for his war experience; Confederate records list him as having gone AWOL for a period in 1863.

Still, the federal government had decided that even men like him could not return to political power without making at least a gesture of reconciliation. A few months earlier, Congress had passed, over President Andrew Johnson’s veto, an act that required the men of Georgia and other southern states to swear an oath in order to regain their voting privileges. That oath was why Alfred M. S. Johnson was in the courthouse that August day.

There had been much debate in the North, during the war and after it, about how to reintegrate former Confederates into political life—and how forgiving to be of their rebellion. The most radical Republicans wanted to require an “Ironclad Oath” swearing that the prospective voter had “never voluntarily borne arms against the United States” nor given “aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement” to the Confederacy. Such language would have disenfranchised most white southern men.

The Wade-Davis Bill of 1864 would have required a majority of white men in each state to take the Ironclad Oath before full readmission to the union. Lincoln pocket-vetoed that bill, considering it too harsh. He’d backed a much more lenient plan requiring only 10 percent of a state’s pre-war voters to swear an oath before that state could be readmitted. And his version was more forgiving than the Ironclad Oath, requiring only future loyalty—that they would “henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States thereunder.”

The oath Alfred Johnson would take had been defined in Congress’ Reconstruction Acts, and it was closer to Lincoln’s than to the Ironclad Oath. Like Lincoln’s, it treated the leaders of the Confederacy with less mercy than it did enlisted men. Johnson had to swear that he had:

never been a member of any State Legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof;

that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof;

that I will faithfully support the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, encourage others so to do.

So help me God.

Johnson had never been a state legislator, or a federal judge, or a member of Congress, so it would not have been a particularly difficult oath to take. The rebellion’s leaders would have to wait a bit longer to be allowed back into full political citizenship.....>

<.....The worst class of rebels, the oath seemed to argue, was those who had joined the attempted insurrection after already been elected or appointed to trusted positions of power—the ones that require an oath to support the Constitution. Both Lincoln and President Andrew Johnson had made similar exceptions for public officials who had rebelled, requiring a more difficult route to amnesty. The Fourteenth Amendment, which was then before the states for ratification, made the same distinction—as Donald Trump is now discovering.

Alfred M. S. Johnson went back to farming after that August day. Not long after, he had a son and named him Andrew Johnson—presumably in honor of the man who succeeded Lincoln in the presidency and had pardoned all ex-Confederates by the end of 1868.

Andrew Johnson eventually moved west to Hempstead County, Arkansas. There, he had a son named Garner James Johnson. As a young man, Garner Johnson left farming and moved to Shreveport, Louisiana, taking a job on the Kansas City Southern Railroad. He begat Raymond Ralph Johnson, who begat James Patrick Johnson, who begat James Michael Johnson.

On October 25, 2023, James Michael Johnson—better known as Mike Johnson—was elected the 56th speaker of the House of Representatives.

Like his great-great-great-grandfather Alfred, Mike Johnson was part of an attempt to oust the duly elected government of the United States and replace it with one more to his liking. In Alfred’s day, the tools were secession and battle; Johnson’s were spurious claims of voter fraud and trumped-up legal arguments.

After Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 election, Mike Johnson worked hard to prevent the transition of power. In the days after the vote, he told interviewers that the allegations of rigged Dominion voting machines had “a lot of merit,” that there were “credible allegations of fraud and irregularity,” and that a voting system was “suspect because it came from Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela.”

In December 2020, Johnson organized an effort to get his fellow House Republicans to sign on to an amicus brief for a lawsuit challenging election results in the four states that would, if their votes were thrown out, give Trump a second term. He sent them all an email with the subject line “**Time-sensitive request from President Trump**” saying the president would be watching to see which GOP members of Congress signed on and which did not.

About three-quarters of the House Republicans who objected to the Electoral College count on January 6 cited legal arguments Johnson had made, leading The New York Times to call him “the most important architect of the Electoral College objections.” He gave what one fellow Republican member called “a fig-leaf intellectual argument” for overturning the election.

Johnson’s attempts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit in a brief, unsigned opinion. The 147 Congressional Republicans who, like Johnson, objected to the electoral vote count were outnumbered in the end.

But America was once again forced to ask: What do you do with men after they have fomented a rebellion against an elected government? After the Civil War, the federal response was generally lenient. Among the Confederacy’s top leaders, only Jefferson Davis served prison time, and then for just two years. President Johnson pardoned the overwhelming share of ex-Confederates barely a month after Lincoln’s assassination; he spent the remainder of his presidency pardoning the rest. Within a dozen years, conservative white southerners once again ruled the South—a control often achieved through great violence by former Confederate soldiers.

Mike Johnson didn’t lead a civil war, of course. But he did try to overturn an election and impose a president Americans hadn’t voted for. And it is striking how small the repercussions have been for those who did likewise. For members of Congress, opposing false claims of voter fraud has been much more politically dangerous than supporting them. Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan, and Tom Emmer each endorsed Johnson’s spurious legal arguments, and each has been nominated for speaker this year. And now, at the mention of Johnson’s actions, the House Republican caucus does little but laugh and boo.

I keep coming back to Alfred McDonald Sargent Johnson, Mike’s great-great-great-grandfather, and the oath he had to take that day in Cherokee County, pledging not to engage in rebellion again. Mike Johnson wasn’t a lowly foot soldier stuck in a war he played no role in starting. He was its architect, its author and finisher. And yet the only oath he’s been asked to take is as speaker of the House of Representatives.>

<If you care about democracy, or about abortion rights or about the lives, freedoms and well-being of LGBTQ+ friends and loved ones, this past week was important.

If you believe the 2020 presidential election was free and fair, as has been proven time and time and time again, this past week was important.

If you see former president and current criminal defendant Donald Trump and his MAGA movement as a dishonest, disingenuous threat to America, if you believe religion and politics shouldn’t mix, that we are not a theocracy, this past week was important.

It marked the end to the myth of the moderate Republican and the party’s full-on embrace of both Trump and a form of right-wing extremism voters have made clear they find unpalatable.

I implore you – young voters, older voters and everyone in between – to pay attention.

New House Speaker Mike Johnson is merely a calmer MAGA zealot

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives ended their weekslong leadership debacle by unanimously voting to elevate Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson to House speaker.

His name recognition was low, his demeanor and bespectacled countenance far calmer than your traditional Trump-enthralled MAGA lawmaker. But his ascendance to second in line to the presidency represented a jaw-dropping GOP capitulation to right-wing extremism and showed every American that the party is Trump’s, and Trump’s alone.

Putting a figure like Johnson – election denialist and a key legal strategist in the effort to overturn President Joe Biden’s clear victory, staunch abortion-rights opponent, vocally anti-LGTBQ+ lawmaker – in power made a clear statement: There are no moderate Republicans in the House with power.

This is an extremist political party with no intention of untethering itself from its often-courtroom-bound leading presidential primary candidate, Trump. This is a political party willing to lie and dissemble and win at any cost to push an agenda wholly out of line with the views of most American voters, as evidenced by the GOP’s struggles in the last three national elections and in smaller special elections across the country.

Johnson makes clear his dislike of the separation of church and state

As soon as he won the gavel Wednesday, Johnson stood in front of the speaker’s chair and said: “I believe that Scripture, the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority, he raised up each of you, all of us. And I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment and this time.”

A day later, he told Fox News’ Sean Hannity, “Go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.”

In an April social media post, he dismissively referenced “the so-called” separation of church and state, something he clearly doesn’t agree with.

Lest you say, “So he believes in God, what of it?”, consider the response if a non-Christian House speaker spoke similarly about their faith intertwining with their work as a political leader. Hannity and most Republicans would spontaneously combust, and rightfully so.

All Speaker Johnson has are prayers: A mass shooting in Maine, and all Republicans can offer are prayers to the church of guns

Mike Johnson is as big a MAGA election denier as there is, and he never backed down

Beyond Johnson’s desire to hoist his faith upon the masses, he was and, as best I can tell, still is an election denier. He fought tooth and nail to build a ludicrous legal case seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in key states, and he voted against certifying Biden’s win.

He has never apologized for that undemocratic sham. After being named House speaker, Johnson was again asked whether he still believes that the election was stolen. He wouldn’t directly comment, saying only: “My position on that is very well known.”

If Trump is the GOP’s presidential candidate, as seems likely, there’s little doubt Johnson will do all he can to override voters’ decisions and again try to help Trump cheat....>

<....Comparing Roe v. Wade to Hitler's 'judicial philosophy'

This all sounds bad, but we’ve barely dipped a toe into Johnson’s extremism.

He once suggested Roe v. Wade was negatively impacting the economy: “If we had all those able-bodied workers in the economy, we wouldn’t be going upside down and toppling over like this.”

In a 2005 opinion column, he called abortion “a holocaust” and said: “The prevailing judicial philosophy is no different than Hitler’s.”

When Roe v. Wade was overturned, he said it was “a great, joyous occasion.”

A House speaker hugging the conspiratorial 'great replacement theory'?

He has parroted views that align with the white supremacist “great replacement theory,” a conspiracy theory that liberals are trying to replace white citizens with nonwhite immigrants.

In a 2022 congressional hearing, Johnson referred to Democrats and said: “This is the plan of our friends on this side – to turn all the illegals into voters.”

In a April 2022 news release about immigration at the border he wrote: “President Biden’s continued intentional destruction of our country at the expense of our own people must stop.”

Johnson's bigoted anti-LGBTQ rhetoric that he doesn't even remember

Johnson has similarly used despicable rhetoric in his yearslong fight against LGBTQ+ rights, tossing around terms like “dangerous lifestyle“ and “inherently unnatural.”

He once wrote in an editorial: “Your race, creed, and sex are what you are, while homosexuality and cross-dressing are things you do. This is a free country, but we don’t give special protections for every person’s bizarre choices.”

In a July statement regarding a congressional hearing he took part in, Johnson wrote: “Today, nearly one in four high school students identifies as LGBTQ. Whether it’s by scalpel or by social coercion from teachers, professors, administrators, and left-wing media, it’s an attempt to transition the young people of our country.”

He has introduced the federal equivalent of Florida’s notorious “Don’t Say Gay” bill, saying: “The Democrat Party and their cultural allies are on a misguided crusade to immerse young children in sexual imagery and radical gender ideology.”

Asked last week about his past anti-LGBTQ+ statements, Johnson told Hannity: “I don’t even remember some of them.” That's neither a denial nor a suggestion that any of his hateful words or policies are wrong.

Johnson shows the GOP's full embrace of Trump and the MAGA movement

I’ll put it simply and in a way that will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers: House Republicans unanimously chose a pro-Trump, anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-immigrant religious zealot as their leader. He’s not noisy and buffoonish like other MAGA figures – think Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia or Matt Gaetz of Florida.

He’s worse. He’s a true believer, and while I respect his devotion to his faith and in no way question his right to those beliefs, they have no business in politics. That he’s able to bend those beliefs to fit around a decidedly un-Christian figure like Trump only makes it clear Johnson, and by association the entire party that supports him, will do whatever it takes to make the rest of us live under beliefs that, in most cases, are not our own.

Pay attention and do not underestimate the seriousness of Johnson's rise

If you take nothing else from Johnson as an avatar of the GOP, take this: He doesn’t care what you think. He is, as he has said, driven by a biblical worldview, and he will seek to implement that worldview by any means necessary.

If you care about women’s reproductive rights, if Trump disgusts you, if you believe your vote should count, if you believe an LGBTQ+ person’s humanity and fundamental right to exist is important, please pay attention. Watching a political party excitedly put a figure like Johnson into a position of great power should shake a majority of Americans to their core.>

<The Department of Justice illegally surveilled congressional lawyers in a 'blatant abuse' of power, according to the targets of the newly revealed snooping.

Top GOP congressional lawyers were investigating the Justice Department in 2017 over its controversial Russian collusion probe, codenamed 'Crossfire Hurricane'.

But new documents reveal that at the same time, the DoJ office they were probing was spying on their phone calls and emails in an allegedly illegal 'fishing expedition'.

DailyMail.com can reveal that one of the key players in the scandalous surveillance was Tejpal Chawla, a federal prosecutor who has donated to Democrat campaigns.

One of the congressional lawyers targeted by Chawla's snooping is now demanding documents from the DoJ, and another is suing the Department claiming it violated constitutional protections in a 'blatant abuse' of power.

In 2017, Chawla, an Assistant US Attorney in the Washington DC US Attorney's office, subpoenaed phone records of lawyers working for the Senate and House.

His snooping subpoena came just as those Congressional staffers were investigating Chawla's office over its 'Crossfire Hurricane' probe, which alleged collusion between Russian agents and Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

The congressional lawyers, Jason Foster and Kash Patel, were outraged by the Justice Department spying – both because lawyers receive greater protections from snooping through attorney-client privilege, and because they were acting as watchdogs of the DoJ at the time, in their roles on top lawmaking committees.

Some of the subpoenas from six years ago were only exposed in recent days when their targets were belatedly notified by Google and other big tech firms, after a court seal keeping the subpoenas secret expired.

DoJ officials who sought the phone records in 2017 were allegedly looking for the source of leaks of classified information regarding their Russia probe.

Jason Foster was chief investigative counsel to then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley at the time.

He got an email from Google last week revealing that in 2017 the Justice Department obtained records for his Google Voice telephone number between December 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017.

He told DailyMail.com that DoJ officials he was investigating went after his wife's phone records and possibly also a phone he used for Senate business.

'This was just a fishing expedition to gather intel on their overseers in Congress,' he said.

'We were their primary oversight committee. And we were asking them very pointed and difficult questions that they didn't want to answer.'

Google emailed Foster this month with a copy of the snooping subpoena from 2017.

Though the signature of the prosecutor who signed the document is partially redacted, enough was visible for DailyMail.com to match it with Chawla's signature on other court documents.

Chawla was already linked to the DoJ's hunt for a leaker, as he was one of the prosecutors who charged another Senate staffer with lying to the FBI about his communications with journalists.

Federal Election Commission records show Chawla has given a total $2,851 to political campaigns since 1999, including Democrat PAC ActBlue, Obama's presidential campaign, and Democrat senators and House members.

On Tuesday Foster, who now runs whistleblower organization Empower Oversight, filed a Freedom of Information request demanding records from the US Attorney's Office about their surveillance of congressional staff.

He told DailyMail.com he was aware of several other congressional staffers, including attorneys, who had been spied on by the DoJ after participating in investigations into the department.

In December last year, former House Intelligence Committee chief investigative counsel Patel was also notified by Google of secret monitoring of his call logs by the DoJ dating back to November 2017 while he was probing the department.

Patel has now sued them over it.

'DOJ sought the subpoena for Mr. Patel's private accounts without a legitimate basis in a chilling attempt to surveil the person leading the Legislative Branch's investigation into the Department of Justice's conduct during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,' his lawsuit, filed September 14, said.

'This was a blatant abuse and violation of the separation of powers by DOJ, a violation of Mr. Patel's constitutional rights, and an attempt to find a way to silence an investigation into DOJ's questionable conduct.'>

<.....Patel's federal lawsuit notes that when the House Intelligence Committee grilled then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for his failure to respond to their information requests in a January 2018 closed-door meeting, Rosenstein threatened to subpoena committee staff's personal records.

But according to copies of the subpoenas staffers recently obtained from Google, the DoJ had already been spying on the metadata from their phone calls and texts even before Rosenstein's alleged threat.

The DoJ pursued both Republicans and Democrats in its apparent zealous hunt for leakers.

Adam Schiff, the Democrat former House Intelligence Committee chair, discovered the department had obtained his and his aides' phone records in 2021.

In a June 2021 MSNBC interview Schiff described the subpoenas as a 'terrible abuse of power'.

The surveillance started after the two powerful congressional committees launched investigations of the Justice Department's 'Crossfire Hurricane' probe into Donald Trump's campaign's alleged collusion with agents of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Crossfire Hurricane was mired in controversy from an early stage, and erupted in scandal when then-House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes released a report in February 2018 claiming the FBI 'may have relied on politically motivated or questionable sources' to obtain a warrant to monitor Trump campaign staffer Carter Page.

A review by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz published in December 2019 said there was no political bias against Trump in the DoJ's probe, but that the Bureau made 17 errors or omissions in its secret court bids to spy on Page's communications.

A May 2023 report by Special Counsel John Durham was sharply critical of Crossfire Hurricane, finding that the DoJ did not appear to have 'any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.'

Horowitz is currently probing the agency's allegedly extensive use of snooping on congressional staff and journalists.

The Inspector General's website says it is 'reviewing the DOJ's use of subpoenas and other legal authorities to obtain communication records of Members of Congress and affiliated persons, and the news media in connection with recent investigations of alleged unauthorized disclosures of information to the media.'

'You have to ask, how far does this go?,' Foster told DailyMail.com. 'We're only just finding out about the Senate.

'We knew earlier about House Intel. Who else have they been monitoring? And for how long?'>

<Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said Sunday the White House would rather “burn the Senate down” than negotiate on his blockade of more than 360 military promotions to protest the Pentagon’s new abortion policy.

“It’s typical of this place. This administration would rather burn the Senate down, and that’s what would happen … If you change the rules of the Senate then it lasts forever,” Tuberville told CNN’s Manu Raju on “Inside Politics.” “So they would rather burn down the Senate than negotiate.”

Tuberville’s comments come as Senate Democrats, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and a handful of Republicans look to pursue a rarely used procedural tactic to defeat Tuberville’s blockade as he continues to protest the Department of Defense’s abortion policies. The tactic involves a standing order resolution that would allow the Senate to move military promotions in a group through the end of 2024, with exceptions for officers nominated to a position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to lead a Combatant Command.

The standing order resolution is already receiving pushback from some conservative Senate members, and it would require at least nine Republican votes in order to pass.

The resolution could be introduced this week unless Tuberville drops the holds, sources familiar with internal deliberations told The Hill. It will first move through the Senate Rules Committee.

“If they go around and, without negotiating, change the rules of the Senate, it just goes to show you they want it their way or the highway,” Tuberville said Sunday.

The policy Tuberville is protesting allows for paid leave and travel reimbursement for service members seeking an abortion, which Tuberville argues is a violation of the Hyde Amendment, a rule that prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion.

Tuberville told CNN members of the military told him the holds are not impacting readiness, an argument repeatedly made by the White House and Pentagon.

“If I thought this was happening, I wouldn’t be doing this. And I’ve told you that all along. And the people that I trust tell me that it’s not,” Tuberville told CNN.

Tuberville said there has been “no conversation” with the White House about coming to a solution.

“No conversation. Nobody wants to negotiate. You know this is not a negotiating crowd over in the White House,” Tuberville said.>

WTG, Tommy Tubesteak! Just remember your hero and practise darvo!