Tag: trump derangement syndrome

California Speaker: I Will Consider Withholding Federal Taxes from The Trump Administration If They Slash Federal Funding from My State

One of the most powerful Democrats in California is shooting his mouth off about breaking federal law after learning the Trump Administration might be about to drop the hammer on his state.

Multiple sources told CNN that the Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large portion of federal funding for California, which might begin as soon as today.

According to the outlet, Team Trump is specifically looking at entirely cutting off federal grant funding for the University of California and California State University systems.

As TGP readers know, President Trump has been rightfully livid over California’s open defiance of federal law, particularly over transgender issues.

President Trump issued an executive order in February, which was supposed to ensure that biological men could not compete in women’s sports. But California and other blue states have decided to defy Trump’s order and continue to allow men to compete against women.

White House spokesman Kush Desai released the following statement Friday afternoon, slamming California but adding that no final decision has been made.

“No taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country. “No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the Administration have been made, and any discussion suggesting otherwise should be considered pure speculation.”

Upon reading this, the speaker of the California State Assembly, Robert Rivas, erupted in anger and threatened various responses, including withholding federal taxes from the federal government.

“This is unconstitutional and vindictive,” Rivas wrote on BlueSky. “We’re the nation’s economic engine and the largest donor state, and deserve our fair share.”

“I’ll use every legal and constitutional tool available to defend CA — we must look at every option, including withholding federal taxes.”

Keep reading

Don Lemon and Kathy Griffin Argue Trump and Elon Musk Stole The Election Through Vote Tampering — ‘Something Was Off’

The disgraced comedian Kathy Griffin has argued that President Trump stole the 2024 election through vote tampering.

In an interview with former CNN anchor Don Lemon, Griffin outlined a conspiracy theory in which Trump and Elon Musk tampered with the election in a way Democrats did in the 2020 presidential race.

Lemon responded by endorsing her theory.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

GRIFFIN: Are you ready for a tinfoil hat moment?

LEMON: Yes.

GRIFFIN: Okay, I’m just going to be bold and say this. And, you know, you can take issue with this all you want.

I do not think he won in a free and fair election. How do you like that, lefties? Yeah, I said it. I’m Kathy Griffin, and I do not think Trump won in a free and fair election. I believe there was tampering. I don’t know. I don’t know if it was the Elon connection.

I don’t know if it was just a few good old boys in the South who didn’t do that. You know, I mean, what they accuse us of, if you remember Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, what they tend to accuse us of is what we find out they themselves did. So I know I’ll take heat for this, and people are going to say I’m crazy, but I’ve been called crazy before, Don.

LEMON:. Your gut is telling you something happened.

GRIFFIN: My gut is telling me that something was up with them.

LEMON: You’re not far off. I won’t say that I disagree with you. But, you know, I’m an evidence person. I’d like to see the evidence. I think something was off.

And especially, you know, when someone said, oh, we’ve got this. And, you know, how do you know that? How do you know we’ve got this? I don’t need your vote or anything like that. It’s a little bit odd.

GRIFFIN: This will be the last election. We won’t have any elections after this.

LEMON: Vote for me and you won’t have to vote again anymore. And also, you know, as you said, every accusation is a confession.

Keep reading

Senator John Kennedy Humiliates Far-Left Ivy League Law Professor After Catching Her in a Huge Lie During Fiery Debate on Nationwide Injunctions

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) is famous in the U.S. Senate for his incisive wit and dry sense of humor. He has displayed these talents during his time as an elected official, whether by stumping unqualified Biden nominees or in interviews with reporters.

He delivered once again on Tuesday as he completely exposed and humiliated a far-left Ivy League law professor during a fiery debate on nationwide injunctions. As TGP readers know, activist judges around the country have subverted the U.S. Constitution for months for the sole purpose of sabotaging President Trump’s agenda.

University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw, the wife of radical-left MSNBC host Chris Hayes, spoke during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled “The Supposedly ‘Least Dangerous Branch’: District Judges v. Trump” to gaslight the senators on the subject and tried to play dumb at various points when questioned.

But Kennedy refused to let Shaw spin her way through the hearing. Beginning with a question about nationwide injunctions being abused, Kennedy immediately exposed Shaw’s hypocrisy.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom Threatens to Block California Tax Payments to Federal Government

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) threatened Friday that his state would stop tax payments to the federal government, after news reports suggested President Donald Trump was thinking of cutting funds to the state.

As Breitbart News noted earlier in the day, reports emerged suggesting that the Trump White House was considering cutting federal funding to California due to its challenges to, and defiance of, federal policy.

Breitbart News reported:

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering ways to pull more federal funding from the State of California, as Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) continues to defy White House policies, despite needing money.

California is suffering a large budget deficit for the second year in a row, with the state’s Medicaid program borrowing money to stay afloat. Newsom has also asked the federal government for $40 billion in fire relief.

But Newsom is also enthusiastically suing the Trump administration over many of its policies, often seeking the kinds of nationwide injunctions that would stop those policies everywhere, not just in California.

…

Trump had already threatened California’s federal sports funding after the state defied a federal transgender policy that bars biological males from competing in girls’ sports. And this week, the U.S. Department of Transportation suggested the administration could claw back billions of dollars in federal spending wasted on the state’s troubled high-speed rail project.

But Democrats have argued that California should be allowed to oppose federal policies while benefiting from federal spending, especially given the state’s large contributions to federal revenues. And they have pushed back against the idea of conditioning fire aid on policy changes.

It is not clear what constitutional authority Newsom has to withhold federal taxes on behalf of individuals, businesses, and other entities within the state. Trump’s authority to withhold funding is far clearer.

Keep reading

Comedian Dave Chappelle Recalls Election Night 2016, Says People in Saturday Night Live Writers’ Room Cried

Comedian Dave Chappelle was recently interviewed on a podcast and talked about election night 2016. He was the host of Saturday Night Live that week, and he claims that when Trump was announced the winner, people cried in the SNL writers’ room.

This is very interesting because it confirms what has been obvious for years, that the folks at SNL actively hate President Trump.

Their constant mockery of him is not done in fun, humor, or good faith. It is used as a political weapon because they don’t like him. That’s also why it’s usually not very funny.

Townhall reports:

Dave Chappelle Reminds Us of the Mass Triggering That Happened When Trump Won His First Term

Many Republicans remember fondly the days when President Donald Trump won his first presidential election and the leftist hysteria that followed. There are memes that are still circulating from that time period, showing how horribly Democrats melted down after being shocked by his victory over Hillary Clinton.

Comedian Dave Chappelle, who was not at all surprised by Trump’s win, recently reminisced about his appearance on “Saturday Night Live” and seeing the reactions from the show’s staff. During a conversation with Variety’s Mo Amer, Chappelle said, “Man, when they called Donald Trump to win, that sh*t shut the writer’s room down. You should have seen them in there.”

The comedian further stated that members of the cast were “crying like Black peoplee” and that “they couldn’t believe that this was happening.”

Keep reading

Chuck Schumer Says if the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Passes WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE

Democrat drama queen Chuck Schumer is warning that if the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ passes, we’re all going to die. Why are Democrat leaders such ridiculous and unserious people?

Remember when Net Neutrality was going to kill us all? How about when we were told that we only have a few years left before we all die from climate change? It’s always the same old story.

This is why the Democrats are about as popular as pond scum at the moment, even with their own voters.

FOX News reported:

Schumer warns Trump budget bill Medicaid cuts could jeopardize GOP senators: ‘We Are All Going to Die Act’

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Wednesday renamed President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” the “We’re All Going to Die Act,” slamming the package over cuts to Medicaid.

The Senate Minority Leader said Republican senators who support Trump’s budget bill are “tenured at best, suicidal at worst,” implying a vote for the legislative package will have negative consequences at the ballot box.

“For many Americans, health care coverage is the difference between life and death,” Schumer said. His new name for Trump’s budget bill comes from a recent remark by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa. In response to jeers from a crowd about how cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would cause people to die, Ernst retorted at a recent town hall event, “Well, we’re all going to die.”…

He continued, “Why are they being so mean? Why are they being so cruel? And why are they being so politically tenured at at best, suicidal at worst? All to give tax breaks to billionaires. They are in total obeisance. Donald Trump is, and his colleagues are to very very, the small group of very wealthy, greedy people who say, ‘I don’t care what you do to everyone else, cut my taxes. And by the way, get rid of any regulations.’”

What a joke.

Keep reading

Sen. Schmitt Raises Alarm Over Judge’s Repeated Assignment in Trump Cases

Concerns about the impartiality of the federal judicial system surfaced this week after Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt (R) publicly challenged the repeated assignment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to several significant cases involving President Donald Trump. 

Posting on X, Schmitt described the pattern as a “statistical impossibility” and accused the case assignment process of being rigged.

Schmitt’s message quickly drew attention within conservative political circles.

“Judge James Boasberg has somehow been assigned FOUR major Trump cases,” he wrote on Tuesday. 

“A statistical impossibility. That isn’t ‘random.’ It’s rigged.”

Boasberg, who currently serves as chief judge for the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, has presided over multiple high-profile legal battles tied to Trump and his administration. 

These cases include a challenge concerning the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act—a statute employed to deport criminal illegal immigrants deemed threats to national security.

In addition to immigration cases, Boasberg oversaw litigation relating to the preservation of communications on the encrypted messaging app Signal. 

In March, he ordered Trump officials to save messages sent between March 11 and 15 connected to a sensitive military operation in Yemen. 

This directive came amid concerns over potential violations of federal record-keeping laws, since Signal’s auto-delete feature risked erasing crucial government communications.

The frequency with which Boasberg has been assigned these cases has sparked growing skepticism among Republican lawmakers.

Keep reading

Deep State Villain John Brennan Suddenly Worried About Politicization of Intel Agencies Under Trump

John Brennan is suddenly worried that the intel agencies might be politicized under President Trump. Funny. He didn’t seem to have that concern during all the years he and others used the deep state to repeatedly attack and smear Trump.

What’s more likely is that Brennan is trying to plant seeds so that he can complain anything that’s found out about him is merely politically motivated.

These people are evil liars.

From the Western Lensman on Twitter/X:

John Brennan, Russiagate Conspirator and Laptop Hoaxer, is worried that the CIA and FBI won’t be “apolitical” under Trump —

— and will no longer attract “principled individuals.”

“It is just so similar to the totalitarian regimes that I saw overseas in terms of making sure that the security services are doing the bidding of the political leader.”

“That’s why I think that the FBI is going to have a tough time attracting individuals that have that type of principled approach to government service.”

Keep reading

‘Separation of Powers’ Is The Judiciary’s Bogus Justification For Anti-Trump Lawfare

The Founding Fathers worried the judicial branch was “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.” Yet it seems that in these days of lawfare, the judiciary is quite capable of effectively attacking the other branches of government, particularly the branch headed by President Donald Trump.

A recent lawsuit, filed by the AFL-CIO against the Trump administration, offers the latest example of judicial interference with the executive branch. The lawsuit attacked several federal directives that attempted to reduce the federal workforce and reorganize many executive agencies.

Trump Executive Order is Constitutional

These actions began with Executive Order 14210, issued on February 11, to effect “‘large-scale reductions in force’ (RIFs) and reorganizations.” Trump’s order is completely unsurprising and legitimate.

Republicans have been worried for decades about the size of the federal government. Couple that concern with President Trump’s awareness that partisan actors, working as federal employees, undermine his agenda, and it makes perfect sense that the president would take swift action to reorganize and reduce the size of the executive branch.

In response to President Trump’s order, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent memos to executive agencies, beginning a process of reorganizing and reducing the federal workforce. The memos called for changes to the agencies and the elimination of thousands of executive-branch jobs.

The more than 50-page district court opinion, ruling against President Trump and his agencies last month, claimed that the executive branch had overstepped its authority, taking actions that should be reserved to Congress and thus violating the separation of powers. The court issued a shockingly broad order that all executive agency reorganizations and reductions in force must stop unless Congress explicitly approves the actions.

Trump is Governing His Own Branch

The Trump administration’s solicitor general filed an emergency petition to stay the order of the court on June 2, 2025. The petition makes a strong case that these reductions in force are lawful and within the power of the president:

In this case, the district court entered a nationwide injunction that bars nearly the entire Executive Branch — 19 agencies, including 11 Cabinet departments — from implementing an Executive Order that directs agencies to prepare plans to execute lawful reductions in the size of the federal workforce. That injunction rests on the indefensible premise that the President needs explicit statutory authorization from Congress to exercise his core Article II authority to superintend the internal personnel decisions of the Executive Branch. But “[u]nder our Constitution, the ‘executive Power’—all of it—is ‘vested in a President,’ who must ‘take Care that the Laws be 2 faithfully executed.’” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 203 (2020) (quoting U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, Cl. 1; id. § 3). Controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland of this authority. The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the President does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers. See Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 607-609 (2024).

The Trump administration is absolutely right. Of course, conservatives value the separation of powers. But the claim that separation of powers prevents the president from reducing or reorganizing workers within the executive branch of government is false.

President Trump is trying to manage his own branch of government. There is no argument for the separation of powers between the executive branch of government and . . . the executive branch of government. This needs to be repeated over and over again to overcome the drumbeat of nonsensical claims that the president is overstepping his authority.

Article II of the Constitution is quite clear: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The president is, for purposes of constitutional authority, the executive branch of government. Of course he needs a staff. This staff may consist of dozens of subordinates or tens of thousands of them. But they are all subordinates who serve at the pleasure of the president.

Yes, Congress provides funding for these executive positions, but that funding does not mean Congress controls the number or persona. If Congress must rule on reducing the number of executive branch employees or reorganizing executive agencies, that would be a violation of the separation of powers: The president would lose control of his own branch of government. This is constitutionally and practically impermissible.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Smacks Down DNC’s Election Lawsuit Against Trump Admin

President Donald Trump and his administration were handed a critical win from a federal judge this week.

And, surprisingly, it came from a judge put on the bench by former President Joe Biden.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali dismissed a lawsuit from the Democratic National Committee targeting a number of Trump’s many executive orders Tuesday, according to Fox News.

Specifically, this DNC lawsuit claimed that some of Trump’s executive orders would erode the Federal Election Commission’s independence.

One of the key orders in question involved a Feb. 18 executive order entitled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies.”

“The Constitution vests all executive power in the President and charges him with faithfully executing the laws,” Trump stated in the order. “Since it would be impossible for the President to single-handedly perform all the executive business of the Federal Government, the Constitution also provides for subordinate officers to assist the President in his executive duties.

“In the exercise of their often-considerable authority, these executive branch officials remain subject to the President’s ongoing supervision and control.”

“However, previous administrations have allowed so-called ‘independent regulatory agencies’ to operate with minimal Presidential supervision,” Trump continued. “These regulatory agencies currently exercise substantial executive authority without sufficient accountability to the President, and through him, to the American people.

“Moreover, these regulatory agencies have been permitted to promulgate significant regulations without review by the President. ”

Keep reading