Desperate Trump V.P. Hopeful Tim Scott Says Racism Is Over

Senator Tim Scott made a wild comment suggesting that his being in contention for Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick demonstrates that we’re living in a post-racism utopia.

During an interview with Ainsley Earhardt on Fox & Friends that aired Thursday, the South Carolina Republican was asked how being on the short list for Trump’s running mate made him feel.

“I think it’s exciting, no matter the outcome,” Scott gushed. “It’s the evolution of the Southern heart that we see on display, and we Southerners get so little credit for the progress we’ve made.

“The whole notion of judging a person on the content of their character, not the color of their skin has happened,” Scott continued. “It’s not going to happen. It’s not around the corner. It’s in the rearview mirror. We are living Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream.”

Since dropping out of the race, Scott has been desperately shilling to join Trump’s ticket as his vice president, and he has repeatedly contradicted his own policy positions so he can breathlessly repeat the former president’s campaign talking points. 

Unfortunately for Scott, Trump is exactly the kind of racist he imagines American society has moved past. 

Trump uses his Black friends to claim he isn’t racist, and while his campaign bragged about receiving endorsements from dozens in a group called Black Americans for Trump, the team  failed to mention that a few of them were on the Trump family’s payroll. Recently, Trump has railed against so-called “anti-white racism” and claimed that Black voters will like him more because of his indictments and his mug shot, comparing his legal battles to the systemic discrimination experienced by Black people in the U.S. As recently as Wednesday, Trump literally phoned it in on a roundtable event with Black business leaders in Atlanta. 

Meanwhile, recent polling found that Black voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania feel Trump should receive jail time at his sentencing in July. A study conducted in April by the Pew Research Center found that a vast majority of Black voters still identify as or lean Democratic, and 77 percent said they’d back President Joe Biden, despite Trump’s claims that Black voters are abandoning the incumbent. 

During the interview, Scott also revealed that the former president had come to him in 2017 after his infamous remark on the deadly “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Trump angered many by claiming that there were “very fine people on both sides,” despite the fact that one side was entirely neo-Nazis, including one man who drove a car into a crowd.

At the time, Scott had criticized Trump, saying his moral authority had been “compromised.”

“He wanted me to share with him my perspective,” Scott told Earhardt. “He listened, and after we finished talking, he said, ‘Help me help those I have offended.’”

Looks like that’s going really well.

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to bar the State Department from using funds from the international affairs budget to cite any number of Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza.

The House voted 269–144 to add an amendment mandating the change to an appropriations bill for the State Department. The amendment was co-sponsored by representatives across party lines, although the votes in favor were overwhelmingly Republican. The appropriations bill still needs to pass the Senate, and it is unclear how it will fare in the second chamber. But if it passes, then the Orwellian move will effectively make the denial of Palestinian deaths U.S. policy.

Representative Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, tore into her colleagues for putting forward the measure.

“Since 1948, Mr. Speaker, there has been a coordinated effort, especially in this chamber, to dehumanize Palestinians and erase Palestinians from existence,” Tlaib told the chamber prior to the vote. “My colleagues want to prohibit our own U.S. officials from even citing the Palestinian death toll.”

Tlaib went on to read the latest casualty figures of Palestinian deaths from Israel’s brutal war in Gaza into the congressional record: 37,718 killed, including more than 15,000 children, with more than 86,377 injured.

“Six children, Mr. Speaker, six are killed in Gaza every single hour. But Palestinians are not just numbers. Behind these numbers are real people—mothers, fathers, sons, daughters who have had their lives stolen from them and their families torn apart, and we should not be trying to hide it,” Tlaib said.

“There is so much anti-Palestinian racism in this chamber that my colleagues don’t even want to acknowledge that Palestinians exist at all. Not when they’re alive, and now, not even when they’re dead. It’s absolutely disgusting. This is genocide denial.”

It appears that many in Congress, their financial backers, and maybe even President Joe Biden want to hide what’s going on in Gaza. Some lawmakers have said that they supported a ban on TikTok because it was a major source of advocacy for Palestine, while others want to ship college students protesting for Gazans to Gaza itself. The House voted to censure Tlaib in November, even though many in Congress have used inflammatory, violent, and racist rhetoric in supporting Israel’s attacks on Palestinians.

Their goal seems to be for Israel to continue the war indefinitely with U.S. support, which only perpetuates the human rights crisis in Gaza. Perhaps these politicians don’t want a peaceful end to the conflict. After all, they refuse to say no to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, even though he is accused of war crimes, and they refuse to end weapons shipments to Israel to force an immediate cease-fire.

Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene will do practically anything to avoid saying she’d accept the 2024 election results no matter the outcome—even going so far as to throw a temper tantrum live on air.

During an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Wednesday, Greene refused to answer whether she would support the outcome of the presidential election if it swung in favor of Joe Biden, and then proceeded to get testy with the interviewer, accusing the Australian host of being a sellout to the U.S. Democratic Party when she attempted to switch the topic.

“If it doesn’t go your way, if Biden wins, will you accept the results?” asked 7.30 host Sarah Ferguson.

“Again, what does this have to do with Julian Assange?” Greene asked. “Seriously, really?”

But Greene wouldn’t let her answer, instead chattering as Ferguson attempted to explain it’s the “next natural question about truth.”

“What network is this? What is this, ABC Australia? Is she getting her marching orders from the Democrat Party? Is this what she decided to come up with today?” Greene said, looking off-camera.

“You’re a prominent figure in U.S. politics. The first debate is tomorrow. The result of the election is on the minds of not just Americans but the whole world, so it’s a natural point of curiosity,” Ferguson continued. “But I understand we’ve reached the end of the questions that you want to answer, thank you for talking to us about Julian Assange and for joining the program.”

In April, Greene lamented that the Capitol rioters were unsuccessful in stopping the certification of the presidential election results on January 6, and claimed that if she “had it [her] way,” Biden “wouldn’t even be president.”

The Supreme Court on Thursday halted the Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule intended to combat air pollution. In a 5–4 decision, the conservative majority of the court upheld a stay against an EPA regulation that requires states limit their emissions to offset the effects in states downwind of their pollution, claiming the rule would cause “irreparable harm.” In a stunner, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke from the conservative bloc and wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by liberal justices.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh led in the court’s decision against the EPA, arguing that the good neighbor policy was too difficult to reasonably implement because who would be included is dependent on the winds. Barrett ripped that finding to shreds, writing that the court’s decision “enjoins the enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits” and that the Supreme Court’s decision “downplays EPA’s statutory role in ensuring that States meet air-quality standards.”

The EPA issued its good neighbor rule in response to several states failing to create their own plans for implementing federal ozone pollution reduction rules issued in 2015 under the Clean Air Act. As Barrett notes, the 23 states that either didn’t submit any plans or submitted ones that didn’t meet EPA standards have been found by the agency to have “significantly contributed to ozone pollution in downwind states.” Twenty-one states “proposed to do nothing to reduce their ozone emissions,” the dissent adds. The EPA is statutorily required to ensure states comply with federal air quality standards, and to create a federal implementation plan if they don’t: In this case, it created the good neighbor plan. Upwind states promptly sued to prevent the EPA from rejecting their plans and to keep the good neighbor plan from going into effect, joined by regulated industries.

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the good neighbor rule follows lower court rulings that deterred its implementation in 12 of the 23 states included in the ruling. Lawyers for the EPA noted during oral arguments that which states are included in the rule isn’t fixed, since wind patterns change.

The concept behind the policy takes into consideration states that are downwind of other states emitting pollutants. If, for example, states are buckets on a slope, and they’re all limited to filling a gallon bucket with water, the buckets further down the slope will inherently end up overflowing with the water poured into buckets further up slope from them. The good neighbor rule intends to reduce the amount of water poured into buckets further up the slope so those further downstream aren’t overloaded. Except in this case, the water is toxic pollutants and the buckets are giant industrial manufacturers toxifying our air and soil, with downwind states getting choked by pollutants emitted by their upwind neighbors.

The Supreme Court’s decision halting the implementation of the good neighbor rule is another step by the court’s conservative majority to curtail the EPA’s regulatory power, and, according to Barrett, it’s a step that’s not going to hold up on its merits if the case comes back to the Supreme Court.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp admitted that he didn’t vote for Donald Trump in the state’s primary elections last week, only one day before the presumptive Republican nominee takes the stage in a presidential debate in Atlanta.

While Kemp had previously condemned Trump’s claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and even supported his subsequent indictment, the spineless conservative governor said he will still vote for Trump in November.

Now it seems his voting record is equally contradictory: Kemp couldn’t be bothered to back Trump in June. But he didn’t exactly take a stand, either.

“I didn’t vote for anybody. I voted, but I didn’t vote for anybody,” Kemp told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on The Source Wednesday, noting that the race “was already over when the primary got here,” as Trump is already the party’s presumptive nominee.

It seems that Kemp has been suffering from the same lack of enthusiasm many voters are experiencing in the lead-up to November. Backing a convicted felon who you believe attempted to overthrow the results of your state’s democratic election will do that.

“I always try to go vote and, you know, play a part in it, but look, at that point, it didn’t really matter,” Kemp said.

The governor maintained, though, that he would “support the ticket” come November. To Kemp, it seems the only thing that matters is turning Georgia red again.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent Thursday, arguing that the court’s decision to gut the Security and Exchange Commission’s power to seek civil penalties was a threat to the separation of powers.

In a 6–3 majority opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in federal court.

This decision was a major hit to a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, which allowed the SEC to impose civil penalties during administrative proceedings against those who break the law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Roberts.

In her dissent, Sotomayor brutally rebuffed the majority opinion as “plainly wrong” and slammed her conservative colleagues for undermining Congress’s authority to impose rules that entitle the government to civil penalties. She warned that the decision came as a result of ignoring a “mountain of precedent against it.”

“Beyond the majority’s legal errors, its ruling reveals a far more fundamental problem: This Court’s repeated failure to appreciate that its decisions can threaten the separation of powers,” she wrote. “Here, that threat comes from the Court’s mistaken conclusion that Congress cannot assign a certain public-rights matter for initial adjudication to the Executive because it must come only to the Judiciary.”

“The majority today upends longstanding precedent and the established practice of its coequal partners in our tripartite system of Government. Because the Court fails to act as a neutral umpire when it rewrites established rules in the manner it does today, I respectfully dissent.”

The decision has the potential to significantly weaken the ability of federal agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission, to enforce fines against those who break laws, as those agencies lack the resources to pursue complaints in federal court. Functionally, the court’s decision will allow financial fraudsters to get off scot-free.

Donald Trump may be happy that the gag order in his hush-money case has been partially lifted as he awaits sentencing, but it could backfire on him, one legal expert says.

Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, said Tuesday night that the gag order change “may and probably will come back to bite” the former president and convicted felon. It could even lead to prison time.

Judge Juan Merchan altered the gag order Tuesday, allowing Trump to talk about the witnesses and jurors in the case. Trump is still barred from speaking about the prosecutors, court staff, and their families, though.

During the latest episode of his YouTube series Justice Matters, Kirschner said that the order’s changes are “in accordance with the law,” but he noted that there is a legitimate fear for the safety of the witnesses and jurors now that Trump can speak freely about them. Still, he believes that there could be a “silver lining.”

“How many of you think Donald Trump will begin posting and saying things about the witnesses that are harassing and intimidating and threatening and perhaps even violence-inducing?” Kirschner asked. In the likely event that Trump does this, it could result in a harsher sentence.

Even before the gag order was lifted, Trump attempted to skirt it in different ways. He had his political allies act as surrogates to criticize the people he couldn’t, even editing their words at times. Some politicians, such as Representatives Bob Good and Lauren Boebert, even admitted that they traveled to Trump’s Manhattan trial for this reason. Trump also criticized one of the prosecutors in the case without mentioning his name. And there are the 10 documented violations of the gag order, which Merchan has already punished Trump for to the tune of $10,000 in fines.

Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts in May for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime in the first degree for paying off adult film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up their affair before the 2016 election. The crime carries a sentence of up to four months in prison, and sentencing is scheduled for July 11, only four days before the Republican National Convention begins in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Merchan already has some alleged gag-order violations to consider before Trump’s sentencing hearing. The question is whether Trump will add to them between Thursday’s debate and July 11.

The Supreme Court on Thursday officially dismissed a challenge to Idaho’s medical emergency abortion clause, noting that it was “improvidently granted,” meaning that the high court should never have accepted the case in the first place.

The decision, which comes after the ruling was accidentally posted to the court’s website on Wednesday, restores the right to emergency abortion in Idaho—but only for now. The ruling will send the case back to a lower appeals court to be retried.

The case, Moyle v. United States, concerned whether pregnant people in the Gem State were allowed to get abortions when receiving lifesaving, critical care at hospitals—as required by federal mandate under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA—or whether they and their fetus would have been considered two separate people.

Idaho already has a near-total abortion ban, but the Alliance Defending Freedom, the far-right Christian legal advocacy group that argued the lawsuit on behalf of the state, utilized the case to advance the idea of fetal personhood. Under the stipulation, doctors would have been legally required to treat a fetus—no matter how underdeveloped—with the same medical care as the person carrying it, even if it posed a potentially life-threatening medical risk to the pregnant patient.

But drafting a state law that directly conflicts with medical care considered to be a minimum for Medicare-funded hospitals around the country was outside the realm of legal possibilities, wrote Justice Elena Kagan in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“EMTALA requires hospitals to provide abortions that Idaho’s law prohibits. When that is so, Idaho’s law is preempted,” Kagan wrote. “The Court’s ruling today follows from those premises.”

Justice Samuel Alito, joined in a dissenting opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, plainly disagreed with Kagan’s description, arguing that EMTALA does not “unambiguously” require Medicare-funded hospitals to provide abortions. The conservative justices also claimed that EMTALA, a federal statute, does not supersede state law or its control of local medical practices—even if that local restriction has skyrocketed the rate at which pregnant women are airlifted from hospitals to receive out-of-state care, increasing the burden and cost of care on neighboring states.

“Idaho never consented to any conditions imposed by EMTALA and certainly did not surrender control of the practice of medicine and the regulation of abortions within its territory,” Alito wrote.

In her own opinion, Jackson disagreed with the court’s decision to duck a final say on the matter, especially after allowing a stay that prevented critical abortion access to linger in the state while it deliberated its decision.

“It is too little, too late for the Court to take a mulligan and just tell the lower courts to carry on as if none of this has happened,” Jackson wrote. By failing to make a decisive ruling on EMTALA’s protections, Jackson warned that “storm clouds loom ahead.”

This story has been updated.

Republicans are still working to buffer the impact of President Joe Biden’s performance in Thursday’s debate, expanding the conspiracy that the executive leader is relying on “mind-altering” drugs in case he hits hard against Donald Trump.

On Wednesday, Tennessee Representative Andy Ogles took the inane idea a step further, touting his recently introduced bill dubbed “No Juicing Joe Act,” which his office said would require the White House to inform Congress any time Biden takes a drug “that could alter his alertness, judgment or mood.”

“‘No Juicing Joe’ would require him to divulge, to report to the American people, every time he takes a mind-altering stimulant like we know he’s gonna have to do before this debate,” Ogles told Newsmax’s Joe Pinion Wednesday. “They’re gonna have him juiced up and jacked up on some sort of cocktail so he can be lucid and take on or at least try to debate Donald Trump.”

Republicans have aggressively pushed the idea in recent weeks, attempting to frame Biden as the weaker, more feeble-minded option of the two. But that goes against myriad reports of Trump’s cognitive decline, dozens of examples of the former president nonsensically rambling at rallies, and a Pentagon report that Trump’s White House medical unit operated like a pill mill, indiscriminately doling out large prescriptions of modafinil, Adderall, fentanyl, morphine, and ketamine to staffers, with insiders claiming it was “awash in speed.”

Presidential prescriptions aren’t exactly unusual: John F. Kennedy, Jr. used his White House doctors to fight off back pain, and Richard Nixon relied on his doctors to treat bad moods. But no previous administrations have matched the level of debauchery of Trump’s, when in-office pharmacists unquestioningly handed out highly addictive substances to staffers who needed pick-me-ups or energy boosts—no doctor’s exam, referral, or prescription required.

In another attempt to superficially broaden the conspiracy’s credibility, Trump pressed the teetotaler president to take a drug test prior to the debate. But it wasn’t the first time that Trump has baselessly accused his opponents of drugging up before their debates. In 2016, Trump levied similar accusations against Hillary Clinton, and in 2020 he called on Biden to take a drug test after he told a North Carolina rally crowd that Biden gets a “big fat shot in the ass,” a claim that he revived this week.

Trump supporters are outraged that Thursday’s presidential debate will be fact-checked. On Wednesday, CNN senior reporter Daniel Dale posted that he’d be live fact-checking the debate, an extension of the work he already does fact-checking things Biden and Trump say.

Dale’s post sparked immediate outrage from Trump supporters, who insinuated that facts aren’t real if they come from CNN. Stephen Miller, Trump’s white nationalist former adviser, went so far as to claim the process of fact-checking the debate is an effort to “smear and spin for Biden.”

One user who described CNN as the “Communist News Network” asserted that CNN gave “Joe robbin’ ya Biden” the questions and that makeup artists will be implanting a “listening device” on Biden to help him remember his answers.

It’s a charming fable, but pretty far outside the bounds of reality. Debate questions tend to focus on each campaign’s platform, recent news items, and public statements. In addition, there’s no indication from Dale’s post that CNN will be interrupting the debate to provide the fact-checks or altering on-screen information to publicize a fact-check, just that one of the best fact-checkers in the business will be posting fact-checks as the debate happens.

Trump has a track record of lying prolifically, but that doesn’t mean Biden never gets fact-checked on CNN or that doing the heavy lifting of catching all of Trump’s lies in real time is a bias for Biden. It’s just that a leaky faucet isn’t as noticeable when placed next to an exploded water main. The simple truth is if Trump said fewer factually untrue things, he wouldn’t get fact-checked all the time.

This latest outrage over live fact-checking comes after weeks of Team Trump insisting Trump’s going to lose the debate, with excuses ranging from claims Biden will be doped up on hard drugs and that moderators are biased against him as he struggles to not be a “raging asshole.”

The New Republic will also have a live watch party for the debate. You can tune in at 9 p.m. E.T. here.