Donald Trump has said he will stop using taxpayer funds for television advertisements glorifying himself, which sparked a major backlash, and instead tap his super PAC to cover ads going forward.
In a post on his social media site, Trump defended the ads, which cost at least $1.5m in federal funds and have drawn intense criticism. Trump said they were “positive promotion for our Great U.S.A”.
“This is a rather standard thing to do,” the president wrote, while blaming intense criticism for using taxpayer funds on the ads on the “Radical Left.”
But the president added that he had “decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc.”
Trump provided no details on reimbursing taxpayers for ads that already aired, nor how he would go about having his political organization pay for such future advertising, AP reported.
But you know he will. Cite me one example where Trump has proven to be a deadbeat.
BTW, LA and San Diego aren’t really part of ‘our Great U.S.A.’:
President Trump, speaking at a campaign rally Monday, suggested Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego — a comment that was possibly in jest but brought a quick reaction from leaders in California.
Trump said he wanted to “see a tremendous victory” in the November election, “’cause it verifies all the things we did. And again, remember, with the war it’s just artificial, it’s a little bit high.”
“It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe,” he continued. “They can take out a city, let ’em take out Los Angeles, let ’em take out San Diego. This is a very small price to pay.
Remember, kids, he’s the President of the United States.
Cartoon Interlude:
People didn’t exactly love Walgreen’s, but if you’ve found your pharmacy closed for the day because nobody wants to work there, you should know it’s because a private equity firm now owns them.
I Believe Him. Don’t You?:
Did anybody make it through the entire two minutes?
The Trump administration says none of this is happening.
“DHS is NOT arresting U.S. citizens by mistake.” “There are no ‘indiscriminate’ stops.” Allegations of “racial profiling are disgusting, reckless and categorically FALSE.” “The pattern is NOT of law enforcement using force.” “ICE does not zip tie or restrain children.”
But that is precisely what is happening, and at a far larger scale than previously reported.
We know because we have once again done what the government hasn’t:
We have tallied and cataloged every case we can find of an immigration agent holding a citizen during the current administration.
More than 500 cases. That includes:
More than a hundred Americans held after agents questioned their citizenship. Nearly all were people of color.
At least 70 American children and teens detained, some of whom were handcuffed.
Of the more than 300 Americans we tracked as detained for allegedly assaulting or obstructing agents, we found fewer than half were actually charged in federal court, and many of those cases were dropped or dismissed.
At least 63 Americans detained while recording.
36 Americans held for at least a day without being able to contact a lawyer or their family.
Roughly a dozen citizens deported, mostly children.
Collectively, these cases show that as the administration has relentlessly pursued immigrants, federal agents have run roughshod over the constitutional rights of citizens too.
We’re showing you every case — the reality that the administration denies — along with the receipts.
ProPublica once again does essential reporting. It’s also essential reading.
A ‘Must-Do’ List Should D’s Win Congress. I suspect the first of many:
What are those tools? I see six of them. First, of course, is lawmaking: the ability to pass bills and get them enacted into law—or if not, to lay down markers of what you would do if in full power, and what the other side wants to negate or block. That includes putting restraints on ICE to limit and hold it accountable for its predations, reducing or removing Trump’s tariff disasters, restoring defense readiness and making sure we are ready for twenty-first-century warfare, rebuilding our food and drug safety capacity to account for the serial lapses, among other things.
And to accomplish these goals without being stymied by GOP filibusters, consider reforming the Senate’s Rule XXII, not by eliminating the filibuster but by putting the onus on the minority by flipping the numbers—41 required to continue debate, not 60 required to end it.
Second, and related, is the power of the purse: the ability to tax and spend, to replenish programs that have been slashed or eliminated, to cut funds from programs bloated and misused by a president, and to put restrictions on how dollars are redirected from the purpose specified by Congress (see Park Service maintenance used instead for Trump vanity projects, and money earmarked for minority health protections used for RFK Jr.’s security). The power is also there to increase or cut taxes on different categories and groups.
Third is investigations and oversight: to dig into wrongdoing, corruption, lawbreaking, and malfeasance inside and out of government, along with the failure to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Fourth, and related, is the bully pulpit:the ability to use debate on the floor and in committees, and the megaphone provided by the legitimacy of Congress, to report to the public what you are doing and to shed light on failures or gaps in norms, laws, and policy. Fifth is advice and consent in the Senate: the power to examine the qualifications and character of presidential nominees for federal courts and executive positions, and to reject those unworthy of confirmation. Sixth is impeachment: the power in the House to hold miscreants to account and recommend their removal to the Senate.
So what do they do if and when “now” occurs? It can start with accountability. That means hearings that bring in—via subpoena, if necessary—every miscreant who violated the law, implemented disastrous policy, grifted, or lied to Congress. It also requires changing the rules to change the nature of the hearings—no more of the tired, disjointed, and ineffectual five minutes of questions for the majority, five for the minority, with each majority member freelancing without coherence and witnesses able to bob and weave and filibuster for five minutes, followed by a five-minute breather from a friendly questioner. Do 30 minutes at a time, with the initial questions done by expert staff to establish the predicates for the hearing and frame the inquiry, and disciplined and coordinated questions by majority members in each 30-minute interval to follow.
There’s lots more. But (a) I’ve likely exceeded fair use, and (b) going on a walk with our granddaughter. who, of course, will be confined to her stroller.
What do you want to talk about?
