Re: blatham (Post 7392595)
Tourism is already being affected. My grand daughter and her partner were planning to visit the US later this year but after hearing stories like this, and stories of people being detained for no good reason, they've decided to go to Britain instead. And I'm pretty sure they're not alone.
President Trump’s intensifying conflict with the federal courts is unusually aggressive compared with similar disputes in other countries, according to scholars. Unlike leaders who subverted or restructured the courts, Mr. Trump is acting as if judges were already too weak to constrain his power.
“Honest to god, I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist and coauthor of “How Democracies Die” and “Competitive Authoritarianism.”
“We look at these comparative cases in the 21st century, like Hungary and Poland and Turkey. And in a lot of respects, this is worse,” he said. “These first two months have been much more aggressively authoritarian than almost any other comparable case I know of democratic backsliding.”
There are many examples of autocratic leaders constraining the power of the judiciary by packing courts with compliant judges, or by changing the laws that give them authority, he said. But it is extremely rare for leaders to simply claim the power to disregard or override court orders directly, especially so immediately after taking office.
In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has purged thousands of judges from the judiciary as part of a broader effort to consolidate power in his own hands. But that required decades of effort and multiple constitutional changes, Mr. Levitsky said. It only became fully successful after a failed 2016 coup provided a political justification for the purge.
In Hungary, Prime Minister Victor Orban packed the constitutional courts with friendly judges and forced hundreds of others into retirement, but did so over a period of years, using constitutional amendments and administrative changes.
Over the weekend, the Trump administration ignored a federal judge’s order not to deport a group of Venezuelan men, then later tried to retroactively justify its actions with arguments so distant from settled law and ordinary practice that legal experts have said they border on frivolous.
Defenders of the Trump administration’s policies have claimed that judges have too much power over the executive branch.
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump further raised the stakes by publicly calling for the impeachment of the judge who had issued the order, prompting a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts.
“For more than two centuries,” the chief justice said, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Mr. Levitsky said he was struggling to find a precedent for what the Trump administration is doing.
“The zeal with which these guys are engaging in increasingly open, authoritarian behavior is unlike almost anything I’ve seen. Erdogan, Chavez, Orban — they hid it,” Mr. Levitsky said.
Questioning authority
The conflict between the Trump administration and Judge James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington is nominally about deportation. But legal experts say it has become a showdown over whether judges should be able to constrain the executive branch at all.
“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” Vice President JD Vance declared last month. “I don’t care what the judges think — I don’t care what the left thinks,” Mr. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said this week during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump wrote on social media that Judge Boasberg was a “Radical Lunatic” and should be “IMPEACHED,” because the judge “was not elected President — He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!”
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on social media that “A single judge” cannot mandate the movements of a planeload of people “who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.”
(In fact, U.S. courts can and do order the return of aliens who have been wrongfully deported.)
The Trump administration’s tactics are highly unusual, said Andrew O’Donohue, a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who studies clashes between courts and elected leaders around the world. Typically, battles over court power have tended to be extensions of political divisions.
In Israel, for example, the right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to curb the power of the courts, which were historically associated with the country’s left wing. In Turkey, the courts were associated with the secular state, and clashed with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s religious, populist agenda.
But Mr. Trump and the federal courts are not ideological foes in the same way. Federal judges hold a range of views, but the judiciary has grown more conservative in recent decades. And the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has delivered the political right a number of significant legal victories in recent years, including granting presidents sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution.
Norms of restraint, flipped on their head
Courts do not have their own armies or significant police forces. Yet leaders typically obey judges’ orders, because of the political costs of flouting them.
Usually, voters won’t reward their elected leaders for violating norms, disrupting a stable constitutional order, or taking actions that are intrinsically unlawful, said Aziz Huq, a law professor at the University of Chicago and co-author of the book “How to Save a Constitutional Democracy.”
But that calculus may not apply to Mr. Trump, who has based his political appeal on gleefully flouting sacrosanct norms. Refusing to accept courts’ authority may actually appeal to the president’s base, Huq said, if they take it as evidence of strength rather than lawlessness.
Past presidents have also been more constrained by elites within the political establishment.
“Richard Nixon had to care not just about public opinion, but Walter Cronkite, and Republican and Democratic Party leaders,” Mr. Levitsky said. “That constraint, which was difficult to measure, but I think very real in the 20th century, has lifted.”
Today, traditional gatekeepers are much weaker — particularly when leaders like Mr. Trump profit politically by picking fights with the establishment.
Protecting courts against hostile leaders
There are proven ways that courts can successfully defend their authority against leaders’ noncompliance or attacks. The most effective source of protection is when the courts can draw on support from other government officials outside the judiciary, “who can put muscle behind a court decision,” said Mr. O’Donohue.
When President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil tried to defy court decisions over lockdowns and public health measures during the pandemic, local mayors and governors followed the court rulings anyway.
But that tactic may be more difficult to use when the order concerns a federal agency directly. Local leaders cannot force the Department of Homeland Security to comply with a court order to halt a deportation flight, or restore USAID’s funding.
Political pressure to protect courts’ power can also be effective, even in cases where a leader’s own constituents are pushing in the opposite direction.
In Israel, for example, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own supporters were strongly in favor of proposed laws that would have sharply limited the courts’ power to constrain political leaders. But the broader public mobilized fierce opposition to the reforms.
In 2023, thousands of Israelis took to the streets almost every Saturday in mass protests against the judicial overhaul. Influential sectors of society, including military reservists, business leaders, trade unionists and senior politicians also publicly opposed the law. Their actions shut down businesses, traffic and even Ben-Gurion International Airport. Eventually, Netanyahu was forced to suspend most of the planned changes.
Mass protest movements are difficult to form and sustain, however. Thus far there is little sign that a similar movement is forming in the United States.
Political pressure could also come from within Trump’s political coalition.
“If even a dozen Republicans in Congress had the capacity to stand up to Trump, this would be a very different ballgame,” Mr. Levitsky said. “Trump and Musk and Stephen Miller could not do this alone. They’re doing it with the full cooperation of the majority party in Congress.”
“We’re in a bad place,” he said.
It seems as if the Trump administration is rushing to tear apart as much as it can as opponents of its wholesale destruction of the United States government organize to stop them.
Today, members of the “Department of Government Efficiency” team showed up at the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which helps to fund libraries and museums across the country and whose elimination Trump called for in an executive order last week. They sent employees home, swore in a new acting director in the lobby, and proceeded to cancel contracts and grants.
Even as this dismantling was going on, District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander was blocking the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing data at the Social Security Administration and ordering them to destroy copies of any personal information they have already accessed. “The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion,” Hollander wrote. “It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack.”
Also today, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who said the government could not use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify sending migrants to a prison in El Salvador, appeared to be out of patience with the government’s obfuscation of what actually happened in the process of that rendition last weekend. Boasberg’s order today laid out that he had repeatedly asked the government to provide information about the flights but that the government had “evaded its obligations,” providing only general information about the flights and appearing to cast about for further delays.
“This is woefully insufficient,” Boasberg wrote. He required that the government explain by March 25 why its failure to return the flights as ordered did not violate the court order to do so. Far from backing down, the administration appears to be considering escalating its fight with the courts. Devlin Barrett of the New York Times reported today that lawyers in the Trump administration believe the 1798 Alien Enemies Act Trump used to deport migrants also permits federal agents to enter people’s homes without a warrant, an assault on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Trump White House and its MAGA supporters appear to be trying to cement their power to control the government by undermining the rule of law and the judges who are defending it. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt yesterday called Judge Boasberg a “Democrat activist,” although he was originally appointed by President George W. Bush, and badly misrepresented Boasberg’s order. She also attacked Boasberg’s wife for her political donations.
In Talking Points Memo this morning, David Kurtz recorded how MAGA supporters Elon Musk and Laura Loomer have attacked Boasberg’s daughter, and in Rolling Stone, Andrew Perez and Asawin Suebsaeng noted that that the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, accused Boasberg of “attempting to meddle in national security,” adding: “This one federal judge thinks he can control foreign policy for the entire country, and he cannot.”
Last month, Vice President J.D. Vance wrote that “[j]udges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” trying to obscure that it is the role of courts to determine whether or not the power the executive is claiming is, in fact, legitimate. On the Fox News Channel, “border czar” Tom Homan said: “I don’t care what the judges think.”
Kurtz noted that Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has promised hearings on the many injunctions against the Trump administration. Kurtz also noted that angry Trump supporters have called in bomb threats against judges who have stood against Trump’s excesses, including Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and have sent anonymous pizza deliveries to the homes of judges and their relatives as a way to demonstrate that “we know where you live.”
Perez and Suebsaeng reported that the White House’s strategy is to “move fast” before courts can stop them. In the end, one source close to the president told them that the president’s ultimate power over judges comes from the fact that they do not command an army, while he does. “Are they going to come and arrest him?” the advisor asked, apparently confident that the answer is no.
The attack of Trump and his MAGA supporters on the courts and the rule of law has illustrated how quickly the United States is sliding from democracy to authoritarianism. “Honest to god, I’ve never seen anything like it,” Harvard political scientist Steven Levitsky told Amanda Taub of the New York Times. Along with his colleague Daniel Ziblatt, Levitsky wrote How Democracies Die. “We look at these comparative cases in the 21st century, like Hungary and Poland and Turkey. And in a lot of respects, this is worse,” Levitsky said. “These first two months have been much more aggressively authoritarian than almost any other comparable case I know of democratic backsliding.”
President Donald Trump’s attempt to undermine the courts, and thus the country’s legal system, appears to have kicked the alarm about the dismantling of the U.S. government into a new phase. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times ran op-eds today from law professors detailing the lawlessness of the Trump administration and warning that the courts will not be able to stop Trump and his administration from their authoritarian takeover of the government.
In the New York Times, Georgetown University professor of law Stephen Vladeck has faith that the courts will try to rein Trump in, while in the Washington Post, Harvard Law School professor Ryan Doerfler and Yale University professor of law and history Samuel Moyn are less convinced that the judges Trump himself appointed will stand against him, but all three of them warn that stopping Trump will require the people to demand “far more aggressive oversight from members of Congress,” as Vladeck puts it. Doerfler and Moyn wrote that “real resistance must take place in Congress, at government workplaces, and in the streets.”
That the courts are in the position of trying to stop a president who is ignoring the Constitution reflects that Republicans in Congress appear to have taken off the table impeachment, the political remedy the Constitution’s framers put into our system for such a crisis.
There has been remarkably little pushback from Republicans about the changes being made to the country in their names, but the news that dropped on March 18 that the administration is considering giving up a key role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has sparked public objection from Republicans who care about the nation’s global role. Since NATO organized, the role of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, known as the SACEUR, has been filled by an American.
Now the Trump administration is considering relinquishing that position as part of a massive restructuring plan that could save up to $270 million of the Defense Department’s $850 billion annual budget, or about 0.03% of it. The U.S. is also considering stopping its expansion and modernization of U.S. Forces Japan, which would save about $1.18 billion, according to Courtney Kube and Gordon Lubold of NBC News, but would weaken the cooperation designed to counter China.
“For the United States to give up the role of supreme allied commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance,” retired Admiral James Stavridis, who served as SACEUR and head of European Command from 2009 to 2013, wrote to Kube and Lubold. “It would be a political mistake of epic proportion, and once we give it up, they are not going to give it back. We would lose an enormous amount of influence within NATO, and this would be seen, correctly, as probably the first step toward leaving the Alliance altogether.”
House Armed Services Committee chair Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) issued a joint statement saying they are “very concerned about reports that claim [the Department of Defense] is considering unilateral changes on major strategic issues, including significant reductions to U.S. forces stationed abroad, absent coordination with the White House and Congress. We…will not accept significant changes to our warfighting structure that are made without a rigorous interagency process, coordination with combatant commanders and the Joint Staff, and collaboration with Congress,” they wrote. “Such moves risk undermining American deterrence around the globe and detracting from our negotiating positions with America’s adversaries.”
Their concerns about protecting their power to have a say in U.S. foreign policy and to make sure that policy serves the American people are unlikely to be assuaged by events tonight.
Eric Schmitt, Eric Lipton, Julian E. Barnes, Ryan Mac, and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported that the Pentagon has scheduled a briefing tomorrow for billionaire Elon Musk on the U.S. military’s top-secret plans for any potential war with China. As the reporters noted, this information includes “some of the nation's most closely guarded military secrets.” Musk’s largest Tesla factory is located in China—Chinese lenders contributed $2.8 billion to it—and as Joshua Keating of Vox explained two days ago, China is the only EV market where Tesla sales are continuing to increase. Keating also pointed to a Financial Times report that Chinese investors have been funneling money into Musk’s other businesses.
After the New York Times story broke, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said: “The Defense Department is excited to welcome Elon Musk to the Pentagon on Friday. He was invited by Secretary Hegseth and is just visiting.” About an hour later, the reporters note, he posted on X: “This is 100% Fake News. Just brazenly & maliciously wrong. Elon Musk is a patriot. We are proud to have him at the Pentagon.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth chimed in: “This is NOT a meeting about ‘top secret China war plans.’ It’s an informal meeting about innovation, efficiencies & smarter production. Gonna be great!”
Then Trump added: “The Fake News is at it again, this time the Failing New York Times. They said, incorrectly, that Elon Musk is going to the Pentagon tomorrow to be briefed on any potential ‘war with China.’ How ridiculous?’ China will not be even mentioned or discussed. How disgraceful it is that the discredited media can make up such lies. Anyway, the story is completely untrue.”
Shortly after Trump posted, Alexander Ward and Nancy A. Youssef of the Wall Street Journal confirmed the story, adding that their sources told them that Musk had asked for the briefing. They also reminded readers that Musk “has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a close partner of China, the country that has supported Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.”
Minnesota governor Tim Walz told Rachel Maddow tonight he was “speechless.” “I don’t know how to convey…how far out of the norm this is…. These are closely guarded secrets because our national and our global defense depends upon them…. I don’t understand where…are the Republicans? Where are Lindsay Grahams? Where are these people who know how this works? To not be terrified of where this is at…. Sharing our most guarded secrets on global conflict with a truly unstable private citizen who has no authority…. This is chilling…. Republican senators need to put a stop to this and pull this back.”
Shortly after Trump posted, Alexander Ward and Nancy A. Youssef of the Wall Street Journal confirmed the story, adding that their sources told them that Musk had asked for the briefing. They also reminded readers that Musk “has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a close partner of China, the country that has supported Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.”
Trump appears to be bending Israel over and shoving a ceasefire down their throat while he’s at it.
The Haskell Free Library and Opera House is located between Stanstead, Quebec, and Derby Line, Vermont. It was built deliberately to straddle the frontier between the two countries – a symbol of cooperation and friendship between Canada and the US.
The library’s entrance is on the Vermont side. Previously, Canadian visitors were able to enter using the sidewalk and entrance on the American side but were encouraged to bring documentation, according to the library’s website.
Inside, a line of electrical tape demarcates the international boundary. About 60% of the building, including the books, is located in Canada. Upstairs, in the opera house, the audience sits in the US while the performers are in Canada.
Under the new rules, Canadians will need to go through a formal border crossing before entering the library.
Stephen Miller@StephenM
9h
A growing portion of the hard left has been violently radicalized. The left must never be returned to a position of national power. x.com/katiedaviscour…
One person who would surely nod in agreement with Trump's statement is the same person who wrote this back in June...
Quote:Trump appears to be bending Israel over and shoving a ceasefire down their throat while he’s at it.
Edit: It was in January this year, not June.
These days, I keep coming back to the quotation recorded by journalist Ron Suskind in a New York Times Magazine article in 2004. A senior advisor to President George W. Bush told Suskind that people like Suskind lived in “the reality-based community”: they believed people could find solutions based on their observations and careful study of discernible reality. But, the aide continued, such a worldview was obsolete. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore…. We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
In 2004 that quotation seemed a reflection on how members of an administration hoped to shape the globe and public perceptions of their actions. Twenty-one years later, it seems we are seeing what happens when members of an administration believe they can shape not just perceptions but reality itself, and discover that reality is stubborn.
After news broke last night that the Pentagon was preparing a top-secret presentation for billionaire Elon Musk on plans for fighting a potential war with China, members of the administration denied that Musk’s visit to the Pentagon would include such a meeting. This morning, Musk posted on social media that the “leakers” “will be found.” “I look forward to the prosecutions of those at the Pentagon who are leaking maliciously false information to NYT,” he posted.
Aside from appearing to confirm the story—one can’t “leak” a false story—Sophia Cai, Danny Nguyen, Daniel Payne, Amy MacKinnon, and Eli Stokols of Politico suggest that Musk’s threat has backfired. “We are public servants, not Elon’s servants,” one Food and Drug Administration employee told the reporters, adding, “[t]he public deserves to know how dysfunctional, destructive, and deceptive all of this has been and continues to be.”
A senior Federal Aviation Administration official said, referring to Musk, “He IS A LEAKER. When you put hard drives on data systems at government agencies you are creating the biggest security breaches we have seen in years and years. Possibly ever.” A Department of Agriculture staffer said: “If the Biden administration or Obama had acted like this, no one would have tolerated it. The Trump administration doesn’t get a pass.”
Those angry at Musk and the cuts his Department of Government Efficiency team has made to the government have demonstrated their anger by launching a grassroots movement called “TeslaTakedown” that protests peacefully at Tesla dealerships. Law enforcement officers and experts in domestic extremism say they have found no evidence that acts of vandalism against cars, charging stations, and dealerships—there have been at least ten such instances—are coordinated.
Trump tried to shore up the brand with a sales pitch for Teslas at the White House on March 11, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Wednesday urged the Fox News Channel audience to buy Tesla stock, an endorsement that violated federal ethics rules but did nothing to prop up the stock price.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi called vandalism of Teslas “domestic terrorism,” and today President Donald Trump insisted that the vandalism of Tesla products is far more serious than the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol when rioters tried to stop the counting of electoral votes and thus overturn the will of American voters. Trump issued a blanket pardon for those rioters, including those convicted of violence against law enforcement officers, but today he posted about Tesla vandals on social media: “I look forward to watching the sick terrorist thugs get 20 year jail sentences for what they are doing to Elon Musk and Tesla. Perhaps they could serve them in the prisons of El Salvador, which have become so recently famous for such lovely conditions!”
At the Social Security Administration, acting commissioner Leland Dudek is threatening to shut down the agency in response to the temporary restraining order issued yesterday by U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander. In that order, Hollander noted that the “Department of Government Efficiency” was “essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion,” and “never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA’s entire record systems.”
She prohibited Social Security officials from sharing with DOGE any personally identifiable information (PII) that would make it possible to identify specific individuals. Dudek suggested that Hollander’s order could apply to all SSA employees because the administration has ordered them to cooperate with DOGE. “Everything in this agency is PII,” he said. “Unless I get a clarification, I’ll just start to shut it down. I don’t have much of a choice here.”
Dudek was a mid-level staffer at SSA until he won his position atop the agency by secretly cooperating with DOGE’s demands to review sensitive records after SSA’s head, Michelle King, stood in the way. “I confess. I bullied agency executives, shared executive contact information, and circumvented the chain of command to connect DOGE with the people who get stuff done,” he wrote on LinkedIn.
SSA oversees Social Security benefits for nearly 70 million people and, according to the agency, was expected to distribute about $1.6 trillion in benefits in 2025. For many people, that check is vital to survival. But billionaire Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick suggested that concerns about a stoppage in checks were overblown. He told billionaire podcast host Chamath Palihapitiya: “Let’s say Social Security didn’t send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law, who’s 94, she wouldn’t call and complain. She just wouldn’t. She’d think something got messed up, and she’ll get it next month. A fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming, yelling, and complaining.”
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, disagreed: “For almost 90 years, Social Security has never missed a paycheck—but 60 days into this administration, Social Security is now on the brink…. Acting Commissioner Leland Dudek has proven again that he is in way over his head, compromising the privacy of millions of Americans, shutting down services that senior citizens rely on and planning debilitating layoffs, all in service to Elon Musk’s lies.”
Hollander responded to Dudek’s threat by calling his interpretation of the order “inaccurate” and specifying that SSA employees who are not members of DOGE or working on DOGE’s agenda are not subject to the order. “Moreover, any suggestion that the Order may require the delay or suspension of benefit payments is incorrect.” After Dudek continued to insist that SSA employees and DOGE are intertwined, Hollander issued another clarification tonight, saying that if that is the case, she “was misled by counsel for the government,” who said that just ten people at SSA are working for DOGE.
“More to the point,” she added, “in my earlier letter today…I directed the government to contact [the Court] immediately if there is any need for clarification of the [order]. As I write this letter, it is well after 6:00 p.m. and the government has yet to contact the Court.”
Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post observed today that “the ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ [is making] the federal government almost comically inefficient.” She wrote that Internal Revenue Service employees line up at shared computers on Mondays to submit their “five things I did last week” emails to DOGE while taxpayer service calls go unanswered. Federal surveyors at the Bureau of Land Management are no longer allowed to buy replacement equipment, so when a shovel breaks they can’t simply replace it; they have to locate a manager authorized to file an official procurement form and order one. Many have had to ignore their actual jobs in order to scrub words from official documents.
After interviewing frustrated civil servants for weeks, Rampell said, she has learned that “routine tasks take longer to complete, grinding down worker productivity,” while DOGE bogs workers down with “meaningless busywork, which sets them up to be punished for neglecting their actual duties.”
“All this talk of warfighter ethos, and our ‘priority’ is making sure there are no three-year-old tweets with the word ‘diversity’ in them,” one Pentagon staffer told Rampell. “Crazy town.”
Administration officials are discovering that their idea of slashing through government might not have adequately considered how actual people might react to that destruction. As constituents erupt with anger, Republican lawmakers are refusing to hold town hall meetings. Yesterday, Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY) responded to boos and heckling by saying: “It’s so bizarre to me how obsessed you are with federal government…. [Y]our hysteria is just really over the top.” When protesters dressed as chickens to goad Representative James Comer (R-KY) into holding a town hall, he issued a statement: “Congressman Comer does not plan on holding therapy sessions for left-wing activists suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
In place of Republican town halls, Democrats are holding their own packed events in Republican districts. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are on a “Fighting Oligarchy” tour across the country because, as Sanders says, people are “profoundly disgusted with what is going on here in Washington, D.C.”
Today, 11,000 people turned out to hear Sanders and AOC in Republican-led Greeley, Colorado. Another 34,000 turned out in Denver.
