A Perfect Storm of GOP Dysfunction

Plus: A loss for Citizen Trump

(Composite / Photos: GettyImages / Shutterstock)

My colleague Adam Keiper observes: “Between the immigration bill being DOA, the D.C. Circuit ruling on Trump's immunity, Tucker Carlson hanging out with Putin, the failed Mayorkas impeachment followed immediately by the failed Israel funding bill, and now Ronna stepping down, today feels like a perfect storm of GOP insanity.”

Spoiler alert: It’s going to get a lot worse. Unfortunately, the collateral damage — for Ukraine, the Mideast, the border… our image in the world — is going to be immense. And the consequences will linger long after the fiasco of 2024 is over.

Happy Wednesday.

How bad was yesterday? Punchbowl News put it this way:

We’ve seen fits and starts, crashes and burns and our fair share of missteps by House GOP leaders through the years.

But what we’re now witnessing with Speaker Mike Johnson’s House defies definition.

Tuesday’s debacle — failing to impeach DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and then choosing to lose a vote on $17 billion in aid to Israel — is truly one of the most embarrassing days in recent House GOP history.

A sample of some of the fallout:

• Axios calls it “10 minutes of humiliation that will live in House lore.”

• Dysfunction Reigns in Congress as G.O.P. Defeats Multiply - The New York Times

• In chaotic scene, Republicans argue with Rep. Gallagher after no vote on Mayorkas impeachment - The Washington Post

• How a botched impeachment laid bare a GOP House that cannot function - CNN

• McConnell faces a growing GOP rebellion after border deal breaks down - POLITICO

• Here are some of the headlines on the Drudge Report:

Who knew?¹

**

And, of course, a slow trombone for Ronna Romney McDaniel, who gave up everything, including her name, to win the favor of the Orange God King, only to be unceremoniously dumped.

---

Citizen Trump

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.” — Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, February 6, 2024

Apparently, presidents are not kings after all.

Yesterday’s unanimous decision by the DC Court of appeals is really a thing of constitutional beauty. It was full-throated, airtight, forceful, and comprehensive in its rejection of Trump’s claim of presidential immunity. Really, do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

There was this:

It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.

And what George Conway calls the judicial coup de grâce:

The quadrennial Presidential election is a crucial check on executive power because a President who adopts unpopular policies or violates the law can be voted out of office.

Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role—the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes—thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress …

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.

At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”

**

What happens now? Our friends at Lawfare provide a detailed analysis:

The panel’s most aggressive move was not in the opinion itself, which is straightforwardly correct, but in the judgment that accompanies it on the docket. There, the panel gave the following directions regarding the “issuance of the mandate,” a next step that must take place before Judge Chutkan can resume Trump’s criminal trial:

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate through February 12, 2024. If, within that period, Appellant notifies the Clerk in writing that he has filed an application with the Supreme Court for a stay of the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari, the Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate pending the Supreme Court’s final disposition of the application. The filing of a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc will not result in any withholding of the mandate, although the grant of rehearing or rehearing en banc would result in a recall of the mandate if the mandate has already issued.-

In effect, this means that Trump can only stop the issuance of the mandate by petitioning the Supreme Court for a stay pending a full application for certiorari, not by seeking rehearing either before the panel or the en banc D.C. Circuit. This is an extremely strong vote of confidence by the panel of how its decision might fare in front of the full D.C. Circuit. Such a demanding timeframe for Trump to file and for the court to consider a petition for a rehearing en banc might otherwise be seen as problematic or even disrespectful by other judges on the court. Assuming the panel is correct in its reading of its fellow judges, this move effectively forecloses one of the procedural steps that Trump might have otherwise used to further delay final resolution of the dispute, bringing the date of trial ever closer. Or at the very least, it would require the full court to intervene actively to stay the mandate if it wants to look at the case—which seems altogether unlikely. 

As for the Supreme Court, the court’s judgment doesn’t do much other than compel Trump to seek a stay of the mandate pending a petition for certiorari within the week. Once he does, the mandate will be stayed until the Supreme Court decides that application. In short, it makes clear that the fate of Trump’s legal challenge—and thus the likelihood that he faces the D.C. criminal trial before the 2024 elections—lies entirely in the Supreme Court’s hands now.

**

Meanwhile, someone is NOT taking it well. At all.

---

Jonathan Taplin: The End of Reality

On Tuesday’s podcast, Jonathan Taplin joins me to talk about his new book: The End of Reality. Four billionaires—Musk, Zuckerberg, Thiel, and Andreessen—are part of an antidemocratic turn in the tech world. This interlocked directorate of Silicon Valley has helped bring us to this time of post-truth reality, online chaos, and mob violence.

You can listen to the whole thing here. Or watch us on YouTube.

The Strongman Party and a Fond Farewell

On my final JBU with my good friend Mona, we talk about Tucker in Moscow, JD Vance's flirtation with defying the Supreme Court, and reflect on a wonderful collaboration.

---

Quick Hits

1. America’s ‘do-harm’ Congress

In the Financial Times, Edward Luce writes that Republicans are blocking policies they insisted on because Donald Trump wants chaos.

Harry S Truman famously branded Congress as “do nothing” in 1948. To be fair, the then Republicans were obstructing the Democrats’ agenda because they disagreed with it. Today’s Republicans, on the other hand, are blocking steps that they urgently demanded which reflect their priorities. To enact them would show that government works and America’s existential border crisis can be fixed, which would harm Donald Trump’s case for the presidency. They will not take yes for an answer. America is suffering by design from a “do-harm Congress”.

---

2. Nancy Mace Is a Hot Mess, Not VP Material

Fantastic read from A.B. Stoddard in today’s Bulwark:

In many ways, Mace is a great fit for Trump. He digs an attractive, camera-ready woman with a big mouth. And “National Nancy,” which she instructed her staff to help brand her as with up to three TV appearances per day, has a lot in common with the former president. They’re both petty hypocrites who crave attention, and exhibitionists who delight in PR stunts.

But Mace isn’t going to make it onto a presidential ticket because she’s too much of a trainwreck. Even for Trump.

As the Daily Beast reported Monday, Mace is facing a staff exodus because she has fostered a “toxic” and demoralizing workplace environment. Within months she has fired her chief of staff, who is now considering challenging her in the primary, and many of her other aides have walked. Several of them told the Beast she’s “abusive” and “delusional.”

---

3. Republicans Are Lying About Their Own Border Bill

Linda Chavez in this morning’s Bulwark:

[Why] the sudden reversal among Republicans who’ve been claiming that the situation at the border is an existential crisis that threatens our very sovereignty? The problem is that they’ve demagogued this issue (and so many others) for so long that they’ve effectively divorced electoral politics from policy. They have told so many lies—big and small—about immigration and immigrants that, faced in an election year with the chance to enact their policy proposals, all they can do is lie some more.

Three of the biggest lies Republican congressional leaders are telling about this bill are worth refuting in detail…

---

4. The Money Pit of GOP-Aligned Super PACs

In the Bulwark, Tim Miller writes:

TWO PERCENT.

That is the share of their funds that the heavily capitalized super PACs supporting Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Tim Scott allocated to targeting the man who schlonged (or in one case, is schlonging) them in the Republican nominating contest.

Much can be said about about the incompetence, self-dealing, and cowardice of the Republicans who were charged with challenging Donald Trump during the 2024 campaign. Marc Caputo covered it colorfully and thoroughly earlier this week.

But after you have cut through all the tweets and trivia and backbiting and biorhythmic disruption that spilled out of the DeSantis “campaign”—if you can even call it that—there is one strategic choice that stands out.

Two percent.

---

Cheap Shots

(Flashback: Donald Trump escalates attack on 'Mexican' judge - POLITICO)

1. We did.