Holiday

 Veteran's Day

Hegseth impeachment trial grows

Senate GOP support for Hegseth impeachment trial grows

By Ted Barrett

At least three Republican senators have expressed support for — or would not rule out — backing a full Senate trial of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth if the House impeaches him this week.

That means support for a trial is close to having the votes it would need, assuming all Democrats vote for it. The chamber is divided now 53-47 in favor of Republicans.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who lost his reelection primary after President Donald Trump opposed him, said, “I’d be open to a trial.”

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina also said he would support one.

Sen Joni Ernst of Iowa, who is also retiring, would not rule it out when she spoke to reporters Tuesday.

Other GOP senators who might be in play, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. John Curtis of Utah, said they wanted to see whether the impeachment effort is successful in the House before digging into the case and deciding a path forward.

If the House votes to impeach, Senate GOP leaders are expected to try to vote to dismiss the case or refer it to committee for investigation, which would likely kill the effort because the Congress will adjourn within weeks. But with these senators expressing support for a trial, such a move might not be possible.

Give him time to write his strongly worded letter......

"The time is now for change": Sanders, Slotkin won’t back Schumer for Democratic leader

By Morgan Rimmer

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, and Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin said they won’t back Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to stay on as Democratic leader next year.

“If this campaign was about anything, it was about change, and the need for the Democratic Party, in my view, to move in a new and bold direction,” Sanders said.

“I personally have known Chuck Schumer for over 30 years, and I like Chuck. Nobody works harder than Chuck Schumer, but in my view, the time is now for change, and I will not be supporting Chuck to be reelected as the Democratic leader,” the Vermont progressive said.

While no other Democrat has announced they are running, Sen. Chris Van Hollen said Monday that he hasn’t shut the door on the possibility.

Slotkin called for a new generation to take on the mantle of leadership.

“I’ve been very consistent for a very long time that we need a new generation of leadership. I said it before when I served in the House, I said it about Joe Biden, and I’m saying it here,” the Michigan senator said.

Slotkin insisted she is “not actively seeking this job. I am seeking change.”

She added, “At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s a radical idea to ask whoever wants to lead to come forward with a concrete plan, not just in words, but in deeds, how they’re going to govern differently.”

Several incoming and returning senators, have refused to say whether they’ll back Schumer, including Sens.-elect Annie Andrews, Adam Hamilton and Abdul El-Sayed, the latter of whom has said he’d back Van Hollen if he is an option.

Sanders acknowledged that Van Hollen was interested in the job and said the Senate Democratic Caucus had a “serious discussion” today about the possibility of a different Democratic leader.

Senate Democrats have several weeks until they vote for their leadership for the next Congress.

He needs to wipe the shit off his nose...

Jordan brushes off questions about Trump as he ascends to House GOP leader

By Alison Main and Manu Raju

Rep. Jim Jordan, who was just elected by his House Republican colleagues to lead their conference next year, would not say whether he plans to be in lockstep with President Donald Trump as the party recovers from brutal midterm election losses.

Jordan said he believes his role as minority leader will be to help Republicans win back the majority in 2028.

Pressed by CNN’s Manu Raju on whether that would require a break from Trump, he said that House Republicans are “going to focus on what’s good for the country, as I said, what’s good for American families.”

Outgoing Speaker Mike Johnson, who opted not to put himself in the running to lead House Republicans in the next Congress, told Raju he believes Jordan’s victory over current Majority Leader Steve Scalise shows “members’ confidence in him.”

Asked what the choice shows about the lessons Republicans learned from the election, Johnson said, “Jim is a known entity, a trusted voice, a trusted leader. He’s an honest broker. He’s a good man. He’s a fighter, and I think that’s the signal that is being sent here that they’re ready. We are ready to dig into the fight.”

Well?

 

WINNING!

US evacuates aircraft from RAF Mildenhall over reported Iran threat

Move comes weeks after Washington withdrew bombers from RAF Fairford after a suspected security incident

Dan Sabbagh and Jamie Grierson

Ten air tankers were relocated to bases in Germany, Spain and Scotland, while Osprey transport aircraft were sent to nearby RAF Lakenheath. It is the second time the US has undertaken a hasty redeployment in the UK with some of its bombers pulled from RAF Fairford in October.

The latest incident was said to be in response to a threat from Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal, although British sources emphasised there was no immediate or direct danger to the base or the area nearby.

The prime minister’s official spokesperson said: “As you know, the US is one of our top security partners. We’re in constant communication with them, sharing intelligence and accessing threats together. Aircraft and other assets move regularly according to operational requirements.”

Asked whether the government maintained that British bases were safe, he said: “Yes.”

Washington withdrew B-1 bombers from the Fairford base just over a month ago – a week after ⁠a suspected Iran-linked ​security incident in September. Two men have been charged with espionage offences on behalf of Iran after the episode.

The precise nature of the threat to RAF Mildenhall remains ⁠under discussion among US officials, and the Pentagon has chosen to take a risk averse approach when it receives threats to planes on the ground after the first phase of the Iran war in the spring.

Five KC-135 Stratotankers, the same refuelling aircraft moved out of Mildenhall, were hit on the ground by an Iranian missile in Saudi Arabia in March, and the US is concerned about how well planes are protected on the ground.

UK security officials however believe that Iran does not have the capability to launch an explosive attack on a base in the UK, although Tehran may threaten to do so in an attempt to disrupt American military calculations.

Donald Trump, the US president, is considering whether to renew the bombing of Iran, although overnight he said further attacks were “highly unlikely” in the aftermath of last week’s midterm elections, when his Republican party was heavily defeated. Trump allies, including the vice-president, JD Vance, blamed the war for the poor results.

Luke Pollard, a British junior defence minister, told a military conference in Oslo “it was a decision for the US where they place their military assets” and that the UK was “investing more” in counter-drone capabilities and base protection.

Local residents are being advised to remain vigilant in case of any untoward developments in the vicinity of Mildenhall or other bases used by the US air force in the UK, though it was not said they faced any heightened risk.

However, the US had reportedly upgraded the security threat level at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath on Monday,according to a US ‌official familiar with the ‌matter.

The base was placed under Force Protection Condition (FPCON) Charlie, which is the second-highest defensive threat level in the US Department of Defense’s security system ‌and occurs when intelligence indicates a form of terrorist action is likely.

A US Air Force spokesperson said: “US Air Force aircraft rotate between installations and operating locations for a variety of reasons, including training and real world requirements. US military aircraft are hosted in accordance with access, basing, and overflight agreements with our allies and partners. Due to operations security, we will not provide further information on movement of assets.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “We do not routinely comment on the activity of other nations. Aircraft and other assets move regularly according to operational requirements.”

Five men driving three white vans were arrested at a village outside RAF Fairford airbase in Gloucestershire shortly after midnight on 27 September over a suspected plot to attack the base. Although a bomb warning had been made, no explosives were found in the search and the men were released on bail.

A month later two men were charged with assisting Iranian intelligence in the relation to the incident under the National Security Act 2023, Mohmed Abdulkarim, 24, and Nouman Essghir, 24. Essghir was one of the five who was initially arrested near the airbase, while Abdulkarim is accused of buying the vans.

While Tehran’s ambassador to Britain has denied accusations it was involved in any plot against the airbase, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said in July that Fairford and any other bases used to launch attacks against Iran were legitimate targets.

GOPers are starving children!

More than 1 million children lost access to food benefits after Trump bill passed

Analysis finds more than 4 million Americans lost Snap benefits, or food stamps, from July 2025 to March 2026

Marina Dunbar

More than a million children across the US have lost access to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) food benefits since Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

The analysis found that more than 4 millions Americans were removed from Snap from July 2025 to March 2026, marking a significant decline in participation in the federal food assistance program.

Arizona recorded the largest drop in enrollment after the bill became law. The legislation tightened eligibility rules for food assistance and increased state screening requirements. State data through May shows that more than 450,000 Arizonans have come off Snap, cutting overall participation within the state in half.

According to the CBPP analysis, children make up a significant portion of those losing benefits, with more than 1 million children across the 19 states studied no longer receiving Snap assistance.

In Louisiana, nearly one in four children receiving Snap benefits lost assistance. Massachusetts and Texas each saw close to one-fifth of children enrolled in the program removed from Snap.

The report comes as participation in the program continues to fall nationwide following major reductions to the federal food assistance program under the Trump administration.

Snap, commonly referred to as food stamps, provides monthly benefits to low-income and no-income households to help pay for groceries and remains the country’s largest food assistance program.

The report says the steep decline in participation is likely tied in large part to the 2025 Republican reconciliation law, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which shifted a substantial share of Snap benefit costs to states based on their payment error rates.

The CBPP warned that the situation would continue to deteriorate unless Congress intervenes. “Without immediate congressional action to delay this cost shift for all states, the unfolding emergency will only worsen as more children are cut off from the food assistance their families need to afford nutritious food,” the CBPP said.

Representative Ilhan Omar, a progressive Democrat from Minnesota, pointed to the outcomes during a speech on the House floor earlier this month. Omar had introduced an amendment aimed at reversing the Snap cuts, but the proposal was rejected by the Republican majority.

The latest figures also prompted action from the US Conference of Mayors. On Monday, the nonpartisan organization representing cities with populations of at least 30,000 sent a letter to the Senate signed by more than 200 mayors calling for lawmakers to reverse the Snap cuts amid the US’s “deepening food security crisis”.

“Snap remains the nation’s most effective and efficient anti-hunger program. It reduces poverty, supports local economies, and provides an automatic stabilizer during economic downturns,” the letter said. “Hunger is not a partisan issue, and efforts to address food insecurity should rise above political divisions.”

This is what happens out of sight, not reporting, the shadow rulings that destroy america....

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 26A560

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, ET AL. v. FRIENDS OF THE

RUIDOSA CHURCH, ET AL.

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

[November 9, 2026]

 PER CURIAM.

Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to construct border barriers and roads “to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States.” §102(a), 110 Stat.

3009–554, as amended, note following 8 U. S. C. §1103. The same section expressly authorizes the Secretary “‘to waive all legal requirements’” as “‘necessary to ensure expeditious construction’” of those barriers and roads, §102(c)(1), 119 Stat. 306, and sharply limits judicial review of all claims arising from such waiver determinations. Specifically, the statute provides that “‘[a] cause of action or claim may only be brought alleging a violation of the Constitution of the United States’” and courts “‘shall not have jurisdiction’” over nonconstitutional claims. §102(c)(2)(A).

Earlier this year, the Secretary invoked Section 102’s waiver authority to initiate a border-construction project at the U. S.–Mexico border, in a region that U. S. Customs and Border Protection has designated the “Big Bend Sector.” The Secretary found that the Big Bend Sector “is an area of high illegal entry” requiring additional border barriers, and waived the application of a variety of environmental and conservation laws to facilitate expeditious construction. 

Shortly thereafter, respondents—an individual river guide, an environmental nonprofit, and a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving a historic church in Ruidosa, Texas—challenged those waiver determinations by filing suit in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Respondents claimed, among other things, that the Secretary’s waiver determinations “violat[ed] the major questions doctrine under the U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1.” First Amended Complaint in No. 3:26–cv–01099 (WD Tex.), ECF Doc. 26, ¶¶75–85 (some capitalization omitted). Although styled as constitutional, that claim simply alleged that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority in issuing the waivers. Ibid.

On October 2, 2026, the District Court entered a preliminary injunction blocking the Secretary’s waivers and halting all associated construction. The District Court acknowledged that its jurisdiction was limited to constitutional claims. But it nonetheless concluded that respondents’ “major questions doctrine claim” qualified because, in its view, the “major questions doctrine is a constitutional clear statement rule grounded in separation of powers.” Memorandum Opinion in No. 3:26–cv–01099 (WD Tex.), ECF Doc. 75, at 7–8. The court further held that respondents’ “major questions doctrine claim” was likely to succeed on the merits because the Secretary lacked “‘clear congressional authorization’ to issue” the waivers. Id., at 8. Because the Fifth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, IIRIRA §102(c)(2)(C), the Solicitor General filed an application requesting either summary reversal or a stay of the District

Court’s preliminary injunction.

We grant the requested stay. The Government is exceedingly likely to prevail on its argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate respondents’ socalled major-questions-doctrine claim. However it is labeled, respondents’ claim does not “‘alleg[e] a violation of the Constitution of the United States,’” the only type of claim the statute permits district courts to adjudicate. IIRIRA §102(c)(2)(A). It alleges instead that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority. And we have long recognized that “claims simply alleging” that the Executive Branch has exceeded its “statutory authority are not ‘constitutional’ claims.” Dalton v. Specter, 511 U. S. 462, 472–474 (1994).

That conclusion does not change where, as here, a plaintiff invokes the major-questions doctrine. Many canons and rules of statutory interpretation reflect constitutional principles, including “constitutional avoidance, the clear-statement federalism rules, and the presumption against retroactivity.” Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477, 508 (2023) (BARRETT, J., concurring). When courts invoke those canons, however, they do so in service of adjudicating statutory claims, not constitutional ones. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U. S. 371, 382 (2005) (explaining that litigants invoke the constitutional-avoidance canon to vindicate their “statutory  ights”). The same is true when a court invokes “the major questions canon of statutory interpretation.” FCC v. Consumers’ Research, 606 U. S. 656, 705 (2025) (KAVANAUGH,

J., concurring). There is no such thing as a “constitutional” major-questions claim.

The remaining factors also warrant a stay. To start, the District Court’s order, which bars the Secretary from exercising his statutory authority to waive applicable laws as he “determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction” of border barriers under IIRIRA §102(c)(1), delays the Government’s construction of border barriers and roads in the Big Bend Sector. The injunction thus impedes the Government from advancing its “compelling interests” in border security and integrity. 

In addition, the Government has presented a declaration from a U. S. Customs and Border Protection official, who attests that—because of the injunction—the Government is incurring nearly half a million dollars in costs per day, which “cannot be recouped” if it prevails at the end of this litigation. Id., 222a, ¶20–22. “[W]hile the loss of money is not typically considered irreparable harm, that changes if the funds cannot be recouped and are thus irrevocably expended.” National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Assn., 606 U. S. 998 (2025) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The balance of the equities also favors the Government. Respondents claim that construction in the Big Bend Sectorwill diminish their ability to use and enjoy the area. But Congress’s enactment of IIRIRA §102(c)—which permits the Secretary to waive the requirements of environmentalprotection and other conservation laws—reflects a clear preference for expeditious border construction over the very harms respondents assert. §102(c)(1). And courts “of equity cannot, in their discretion, reject the balance that Congress has struck in a statute.” United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U. S. 483, 497 (2001). The Government’s interest therefore outweighs any aesthetic, recreational, and environmental harm alleged by respondents. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 25–26 (2008). 

The application for stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is granted. The injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in case No. 3:26–cv–01099 is stayed pending the filing and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

It is so ordered.

 JUSTICE JACKSON would deny the application for stay. 

Would you be surprised?

Trump officials destroying documents?

By Ja'han Jones

A top House Democrat is warning members of the Trump administration not to hide or destroy documents as the party plans to investigate top officials in the next Congress.

Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, who is primed to lead the House Education and Workforce Committee next year, sent letters to the heads of numerous federal agencies on Wednesday, reminding them of the Federal Records Act and the threat of criminal liability for anyone in violation of it. Scott’s letter follows incoming House Oversight Committee Chair Robert Garcia’s two-word warning to Trump officials after Democrats’ “blue tsunami” in Tuesday’s midterms: “Lawyer up.”

The letters warn that anyone who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys” federal documents could face up to three years in prison. And one can only imagine the sorts of things that might be unearthed by Scott’s committee.

Letter recipients include leaders of several agencies that Trump and his allies have used to federalize the MAGA movement’s racism, sexism and antiscientific hysteria. Education Secretary Linda McMahon — who has helped dismantle school desegregation policies while trying to abolish her own department — got one. So did Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose conspiracy theory-laden antivaccine agenda has been condemned for promoting eugenics. And Andrea Lucas, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission chair who has helped fuel MAGA world’s false claims that the workforce is rigged against white men, received Scott’s warning as well.

They’re joined by the heads of the Agriculture Department, the National Labor Relations Board, the National Endowment for the Arts and more. And they all received the same message: Investigations are coming, so don’t even think about pulling a Trump and hoarding documents in your bathroom.

And the warnings seem more than warranted. In addition to Trump’s personal history with documents, he has waged war on the Presidential Records Act, which requires the retention of federal records and communications. Furthermore, he reportedly vowed to issue mass pardons to members of his staff within 200 feet of the Oval Office before his term ends.

This is not someone known to adhere to federal records laws, and we have no reason to believe he expects anything better from members of his administration.

Why am I in such a good mood?

Dave Chappelle is testing the right with jokes about Charlie Kirk

By Zoe Sottile

No one was supposed to see the videos of the comedian Dave Chappelle appearing to joke about the death of Charlie Kirk.

“I feel fucked up saying this,” Chappelle said during a set at Madison Square Garden this weekend, multiple recordings of which circulated on X. “It’s scary being a public speaker. And I mean, look, ever since that guy Charlie Kirk got murdered — and I shouldn’t say this publicly, but — ”

He paused for the punchline: “ — I feel better.”

Chappelle went on: “I know I shouldn’t say that, but it’s just a feeling. I just be driving around, like, ‘Why am I in such a good mood?’”

The clips about Kirk are short, and it’s unclear what preceded or followed the bit in the routine.

In another video from Chappelle’s two-night set, the comedian seemed to suggest that Kirk, who was shot and killed while speaking at a Turning Point USA event at a Utah university last September, was in hell: “I’m sure he’s looking up at us right now, laughing so hard he can’t breathe.”

The comic legend has a strict no-phones policy at his shows, but a few blurry clips emerged nonetheless. Conservative commentators quickly condemned the bit. The next day, without naming Chappelle, Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, called comedians joking about her husband’s death “beyond disgusting” and decried a culture that uses the “destruction of a human life” as a “punchline.” Elon Musk declared Chappelle “just not funny anymore.”

Chappelle has built his career on a readiness to push the bounds of acceptability — originally with scalding routines about racism and racial stereotyping, and then with provocations toward people he considered oversensitive or censorious. In the past few years, he’s been the subject of criticism from the left for his jokes about gay and trans people.

His jokes about Kirk seem to represent a shift in the winds on two levels. For Chappelle, who did not respond to requests for comment, it treated conservatives as the easily provoked parties, in the way he’d assigned to the left. And in the broader culture, the jokes in a sold-out arena suggest just how much the tides have turned since the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s killing, during which those who criticized him, or simply quoted Kirk’s own inflammatory remarks, faced investigations, firings and even arrest.

On Thursday, after the midterm election resulted in a historic blue wave, the liberal commentator Jennifer Welch was reading aloud posts from X on her left-leaning podcast, “I’ve Had It.” One of the posts she read said: “We’re digging up Charlie Kirk and doing it again” and Welch laughed as she read it, and then for some time afterward. The post Welch read received over two million views and more than 200,000 likes, before the person who posted it made their account private.

The reaction to Welch’s laughter was swift. Ben Shapiro’s conservative outlet, The Daily Wire, called it “evil.” Several of the podcast’s sponsors, including the multibillion-dollar pet-supplies delivery company Chewy, condemned the comment, and some — like Cash App and the eyewear brand Zenni — said they would no longer advertise on the show altogether.

Welch and her co-host Angie Sullivan both apologized for laughing about the joke, calling it insensitive. Still, Welch accused the organization Kirk founded, Turning Point USA, of “trying to ignite a war with us because they want to prove to their donors, ‘we can cancel libs.’” In an emailed statement, the podcasters said they “still have plenty of advertisers and we aren’t going anywhere.”

This wasn’t the only time Kirk and Chappelle’s careers improbably intersected. In 2022, Kirk posted on X calling for criminal charges against an audience member who had attacked Chappelle on stage. By declining to charge the attacker — who the LAPD said had a replica handgun containing a knife blade — the district attorney had, Kirk wrote, sent “a clear message that public acts of political violence are justifiable—and even encouraged—against anyone who dares speak out against The Regime.”