Potus – Page 2 – 1man1vote

Trump Seeks Supreme Court Approval

Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Approval to Remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook

Washington, D.C. — The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the immediate removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, escalating a constitutional clash over presidential authority. As of September 18, 2025, the Court has not yet scheduled a ruling.

The administration argues that the president’s decision to remove an official “for cause” cannot be reviewed by the courts. The Justice Department’s filing cites allegations of mortgage fraud, though recently disclosed documents indicate that Cook has “done nothing wrong.” Her defenders say the case is a politically motivated effort to weaken the Federal Reserve’s independence.

Legal experts warn that if the Court sides with the administration, it could expand presidential power in ways that undermine checks and balances, especially for independent agencies designed to resist partisan pressure.

The dispute has sparked a wave of commentary online. Critics on social media warn of “a direct threat to the Fed’s independence” and describe the move as “a power grab disguised as accountability.” Supporters of Trump counter that the president must retain authority to remove officials accused of misconduct without judicial interference.

Some lawmakers fear that if the Supreme Court rejects the administration’s request, Trump could pressure House Republicans to pursue impeachment of the Chief Justice—a step that would push the crisis into uncharted constitutional territory.

Cook, appointed in 2022 and the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, has drawn praise for her professionalism and independent judgment. Her allies argue those qualities make her a target for political removal.

For now, the case sits before a Supreme Court already under scrutiny for its role in refereeing disputes between the White House and independent institutions. A decision to hear or reject the administration’s request will shape not only Cook’s future, but also the balance of power between the presidency, the courts, and the agencies that underpin U.S. governance.

Waters Applauds Court Ruling

Court Blocks Trump’s Attempt to Remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook:

Waters Applauds Court Ruling

A federal court has issued a preliminary injunction blocking former President Donald Trump’s effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, drawing swift praise from top Democrats, including Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA). The ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle over the independence of the nation’s central bank and the limits of presidential power.

In her statement, Congresswoman Waters hailed the court’s decision as “a victory for our democracy, the rule of law, and the independence of the Federal Reserve.” She emphasized that the ruling made clear that Trump’s attempt to oust Cook failed to meet the legal standard of “for cause” removal and violated her constitutional due process rights.

“This decision sends a strong message,” Waters declared. “Donald Trump is wrong—he is not above the law. His radical attempt to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook was not only unlawful but also a dangerous effort to politicize the Federal Reserve, threatening our economy, retirement security, and stability of global markets.”

The Case Against Cook

The Trump administration had alleged that Governor Cook committed malfeasance related to her real estate holdings, specifically a condominium in Atlanta. Trump’s allies claimed Cook misrepresented the property as a primary residence on certain forms. However, reporting from Reuters and court filings undercut those claims.

Documents reviewed by reporters showed that in her most recent loan estimate from May 2021, Ms. Cook described the Atlanta condo as a “vacation home.” On a federal security clearance form, she listed it as a “second home.” Fulton County tax records confirmed she had never claimed a homestead exemption on the property, the typical designation for a primary residence.

These facts appeared to undermine the administration’s assertion of misconduct and lent weight to the court’s view that the attempt at removal lacked credible grounds.

Political and Economic Stakes

The independence of the Federal Reserve has long been considered sacrosanct, meant to shield monetary policy decisions from short-term political pressures. Trump’s move to remove Cook—a respected economist and the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor—ignited alarm across financial, political, and academic circles.

Economists warned that political interference of this scale could destabilize U.S. financial markets and weaken confidence in American institutions abroad. On social media, finance professionals and commentators highlighted the potential dangers: “If the Fed becomes an arm of whoever sits in the White House, inflation, interest rates, and the dollar itself become political footballs,” one analyst posted on X (formerly Twitter).

Many users echoed Waters’ warning that weaponizing central banking could lead to higher inflation and risks for everyday Americans’ savings. “Trump is trying to turn the Fed into a campaign tool. That’s not just illegal, it’s reckless,” wrote another commenter.

International media outlets also covered the story, with European and Asian financial papers noting parallels to instances in other countries where central bank independence was eroded, often leading to investor flight and economic turmoil.

A Fight Far From Over

Though the ruling allows Cook to remain in her position for now, the legal battle is far from over. Waters cautioned that Trump is likely to push the case all the way to the Supreme Court in what she described as “an ongoing and desperate effort to seize control of every level of the financial system.”

For Democrats, the case is about more than one official—it represents a broader fight to protect the institutional safeguards that underpin the American economy. For Trump and his allies, it is another front in their campaign to reshape federal power.

As of now, Lisa Cook continues her service on the Federal Reserve Board, carrying out her role in helping guide U.S. monetary policy. But with appeals looming and political stakes high, the battle over her tenure underscores just how fragile the boundaries between politics and the nation’s most important economic institutions have become.

The Road Is Long, With Many A Winding Turn.

~The Hollies

The Doctor Was In – too deep

Dr. Phil Accused of Fraud as a $500 Million TV Deal Collapsed.

Less than a year after drawing headlines for his high-profile endorsement of Donald Trump, Dr. Phil McGraw now finds himself at the center of aq lol LP major legal battle. The television personality is facing accusations of fraud and mismanagement tied to the collapse of his new media company, Merit Street Media, in what has become a $500 million courtroom fight.

The dispute came to light this week after The Hollywood Reporter revealed that Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), Dr. Phil’s former partner, filed a lawsuit in Texas federal court on August 19. The Christian broadcaster alleges that McGraw misled them in a decade-long, half-billion-dollar deal, promising hundreds of episodes of new programming that never materialized while draining the company of millions.

According to TBN’s filing, McGraw, 74, approached the network in 2022 after ending his long-running partnership with CBS. He allegedly assured executives that relocating production to Texas and cutting union jobs would reduce costs, while also pitching the continued strength of his brand with advertisers. The lawsuit claims McGraw pushed for a $20 million upfront payment through his production company, Peteski, threatening to return to CBS unless his terms were met.

TBN says it ultimately invested more than $100 million into the venture, covering expenses that reached as high as $13 million per month. Despite the outlay, the network claims McGraw underdelivered, producing neither the audience numbers nor the advertising revenue that had been promised. The filing further accuses him of reneging on a $9 million obligation, refusing to hand over the library of past episodes, and later demanding $100 million for 50 percent ownership of those archives.

In a sharply worded statement, McGraw’s representatives rejected the allegations. They insisted that 214 new episodes of Dr. Phil Primetime were produced and aired on Merit Street Media, dismissing TBN’s claim that no new content was delivered as “absolutely false.”

Meanwhile, Merit Street Media, which has since entered bankruptcy, has filed its own lawsuit against TBN. That complaint paints a different picture, accusing the network of sabotaging the enterprise by blocking national distribution opportunities and forcing costly agreements that weakened the company. It also alleges that TBN provided “shoddy production services” while prioritizing its own financial interests.

The dueling lawsuits lay bare a partnership that quickly unraveled amid clashing visions, escalating costs, and questions about control of Dr. Phil’s lucrative archives. TBN’s case accuses McGraw of fraud, breach of contract, and mismanagement, while seeking clarity on who holds rights to his programming library and what obligations remain from the failed deal.

The legal showdown follows a tumultuous year for McGraw, who drew widespread attention in 2024 for a full-throated public endorsement of Donald Trump at a campaign rally. That move sparked both praise and backlash, with critics questioning the TV host’s political leanings.

As the lawsuits proceed, the fate of Dr. Phil’s media empire — once envisioned as a bold new chapter after two decades on CBS — remains uncertain. Requests for further comment from McGraw’s team have not yet been returned.

Doc had a good thing going. He had a solid fan base that respected his body of work. He could have remained bipartisan but somehow he sought a power position, and decided to stick his nose into grown folks business.

Washington Has Fallen

House Recess Sparks Controversy as Trump Seizes Control of D.C. Police

WASHINGTON, D.C.

The House of Representatives abruptly adjourned for its August recess on July 22, 2025, amid a dispute over legislation concerning the public release of the so-called “Epstein files.” With Congress shuttered earlier than scheduled, the current resident, Donald Trump — who continues to assert sweeping authority over the federal government — moved to invoke a rarely used provision of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, seizing control of the Metropolitan Police Department.

The decision has raised alarm across Washington, a city accustomed to demonstrations, visiting dignitaries, and heightened security, but not to routine military presence on neighborhood streets.

One resident described unease at the sight of armed patrols moving through residential areas. “Even in a city like ours, where security is always tight, this is unprecedented,” the resident said. Another longtime D.C. transplant expressed similar concerns, noting heightened anxiety while traveling to a routine doctor’s appointment. Helicopters circling overhead, the resident said, gave the sense of a city under occupation rather than protection.

California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a senior Democrat, condemned the move in a statement issued from her office.

Immediate Release:

August 14, 2025

ca43.press@mail.house.gov

Congresswoman Maxine Waters Releases Statement on Trump’s Federalization of DC Police

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-43) released the following statement in response to Donald Trump’s decision to invoke Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC.

“Trump is continuing to advance his racist agenda against Black folks. He is now using his executive privilege to federalize the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC, claiming he’s doing this to reduce crime, even though statistics show crime is at a 30-year low. He’s invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. This emergency authority allows the president to take control of the MPD for up to 30 days during a declared emergency. There IS no emergency! If it’s notabout-face crime, then what is it about?

Trump clearly hates Black people. It shows in his constant attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, his racist assaults on the legacy of John Lewis and his district, and his appalling disparagement of the late Elijah Cummings. He even blamed the devastating Potomac plane crash on “DEI.”

He has repeatedly targeted Black women, including Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, TheGrio journalist April Ryan, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, Vice President Kamala Harris, and me.

He joined Elon Musk in attacking the South African government, falsely claiming they deny justice to white Afrikaners, rewriting history, and ignoring Black suffering under apartheid. Musk, seeking a battery factory in South Africa, opposes the 30% local participation requirement, which aims to empower historically disadvantaged Black South Africans. Meanwhile, Trump simultaneously deported Latin Americans illegally and allowed 59 white South Africans into the U.S. without visas or legal processing.

This “would be” dictator is using confrontational tactics to provoke Blacks, Latinos, and others into a standoff. He is just itching to invoke Martial Law, and yes, even push for civil war. This damaged human being is pushing our country to the edge. Everyone needs to be aware and not fall victim to his lies, provocations, antics, and tactics. He’s just damn crazy!”

The More Things Change

Let us not forget that Television is one part broadcasting, one part advertising and one part programing.

CBS canceled The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour in 1969, “officially” citing their failure to meet contractual pre-air delivery dates for episodes. (a purely business decision) However, the true reason was the ongoing conflict with the network over the show’s controversial political satire and social commentary, particularly regarding the Vietnam War and civil rights.

So, Which Is It?

So which is it?

No DEI or all DEI. Demanding that all naval ships, military installations, and now sports teams, be stripped of their DEI designations and be named only after good clean white folk, seems to be either reverse DEI or plain and simple white supremacist racism. Even more concerning and sinister is his new demand that, under threat of executive prerogative to F with their money, all teams should revert back to their (for simplicity sake let”s just call it) “slave names”.

With what is allowed to go for clear eyed vision, it becomes clear that he strives to intentionally, and brutally deliver on Manifest destiny, by forcing native Americans to just live with the indignity of those naming conventions. Once again for his own amusement, under the guise of electoral mandate, he does not shy away from any opportunity to “hurt someone and help no one.”

###

capitulation

[kuh-pich-uh-ley-shun]

noun

the act of capitulating.

1. the document containing the terms of a surrender.

Play Ball

Getting High In America

In the late 1800s, Chinese immigrants in the United States, particularly on the West Coast, were heavily associated with the opium trade and the operation of opium dens. While not all Chinese immigrants were involved in this trade, opium use and sales became a prominent part of some Chinese communities, especially in places like San Francisco’s Chinatown.

Opium dens, often described as hidden and underground spaces, were typically run by Chinese men and became gathering places for smoking opium, These dens, sometimes adorned with red signs with Chinese calligraphy reading “PIPES AND LAMPS ALWAYS CONVENIENT”, served both Chinese and a growing white clientele, initially from the urban underworld and later from more “respectable” circles.

Opium use, initially a habit primarily among Chinese immigrants, became increasingly prevalent among the white population in the US by the 1870s and 1880s. This growing association, fueled by existing xenophobia and racism, contributed to a negative perception of Chinese immigrants, often leading to their criminalization. Discrimination and stereotypes: Anti-Chinese sentiment flourished during this period, stemming from economic competition, cultural differences, and outright discrimination against Chinese immigrants. Chinese laborers, often working for lower wages to support families back home and pay off debts, faced resentment from non-Chinese workers. This, coupled with the association of Chinatowns with gambling, prostitution, and opium use, led to racist campaigns that portrayed Chinese immigrants as corrupting society.

Concerns about Chinese opium smoking were exploited by those who sought to restrict Chinese immigration. This anti-Chinese sentiment eventually culminated in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which explicitly restricted immigration based on nationality and was not repealed until 1943.

Some Chinese crime organizations, known as Tongs, played a role in the illicit activities within Chinatowns, including the opium trade. Originally formed as benevolent associations to assist Chinese immigrants, some Tongs became involved in criminal enterprises like operating opium and gambling dens.

It’s important to remember that the narrative of Chinese immigrants and opium in the late 1800s is complex and multifaceted, entangled with issues of immigration, discrimination, and the social and economic conditions of the time.

Nearly 2 decades later, the war on drugs plays on. Leadership still tries to blame China, for opium, but the narrative shimmers to and fro, to include Afghan poppy fields, and now Latin American producers, shoppers and street dealers.

Somehow, these politically charged, police actions are oft times built upon a ting of racial animosity, leading to misdirected conclusions that never seek to point a finger at our own users, addicts and junkies, seeking the thrill of the high. Is it the enemy abroad, the enemy within, or the leadership, using both to maintain their power base. We criminalize, deport and incarcerate dealers and those found in possession, rather than develop mental, medical or diversionary programs to stem the desire to use.

Play ball.

A Nation On The Brink

A Nation on the Brink: The “Big Beautiful Bill” and the Rise of American Autocracy

In what many are calling the most dangerous legislative moment in recent American history, the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” is now advancing toward a full Senate vote. Championed aggressively by the former president—who has referred to the measure as his “masterpiece”—the bill’s Section 70302 has set off constitutional alarms nationwide. This clause would bar federal courts from enforcing contempt charges, a critical legal mechanism historically used to ensure compliance with subpoenas and uphold the rule of law.

Legal scholars and watchdog organizations have warned that this single clause, buried deep in the legislative jargon, effectively turns the executive branch into a rogue entity, unchecked by either the judiciary or Congress. It’s a development that has echoes not only of banana republics but of authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, and North Korea—nations where power is absolute and the law is merely a tool of the ruler.

The political climate in Washington is already unstable. The former president, recently returned to the national stage after a controversial re-election bid fueled by inflammatory rhetoric and disinformation, has repeatedly demonstrated disdain for constitutional norms. He faces a barrage of lawsuits, investigations, and contempt citations—all of which could be rendered moot if the bill passes in its current form. It’s no wonder his allies, described by critics as “brown-nosing sycophants,” are pushing the bill, also known as the Big Rotten Sonovabill, in Democratic editorials, with such quiet desperation.

To understand the gravity of the situation, one must only examine recent headlines.

In March, a federal judge in D.C. held two administration officials in contempt for ignoring congressional subpoenas related to the mishandling of classified intelligence. One of those officials, who refused to testify before a bipartisan oversight committee, remains unpunished due to the Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute. With Section 70302 in place, there wouldn’t even be a possibility of future contempt enforcement—effectively neutering the court’s authority.

Meanwhile, whistleblowers from within the Justice Department have leaked internal memos describing increasing pressure to “stand down” on enforcement actions tied to administration figures. One memo allegedly ordered federal prosecutors to “consider the political implications” before pursuing legal action. This chilling directive aligns with the wider narrative: a steady dismantling of the separation of powers.

Social media platforms have become battlegrounds. Hashtags like #ContemptClause and #SaveTheConstitution are trending, as citizens, legal experts, and even some former Republican officials raise alarm bells. A viral TikTok video posted by a law student in Michigan broke down Section 70302 in under a minute and ended with a stark message: “This is how democracy dies—not with a bang, but with a loophole.”

Yet, all hope is not lost.

The Senate, currently split 53–47, sits at a precipice. Four GOP senators, quietly dubbed “the marionettes” for their historic pattern of grappling with the party line, have emerged as the last remaining hope to halt the bill. Comparisons are already being drawn to the late Senator John McCain’s dramatic 2017 thumbs-down vote, which killed the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its final hour. That single act was heralded as a moment of conscience in an otherwise polarized chamber.

The eyes of the nation are now on these four senators. Their names are being whispered in corridors and shouted from protest podiums. Their silence has been deafening, but rumors persist that at least two are “deeply uncomfortable” with the bill’s implications, particularly the nullification of court authority.

Pressure is mounting from civil rights organizations, bar associations, and even retired federal judges. In an unprecedented move, the National Conference of Federal Judges issued a joint statement warning that “the passage of Section 70302 would mark the beginning of an authoritarian slide we may not be able to reverse.”

And what of the president himself?

He has declared victory prematurely, telling supporters at a recent rally, “Once this bill passes, nobody can touch me. Nobody. Not crooked judges, not loser prosecutors, not even the fake news.” The crowd erupted in cheers—but for the millions watching in disbelief, the message was clear: we are witnessing the open dismantling of democratic accountability.

This is not just political theatre. This is a real and present danger to the republic.

If passed, the bill could set a precedent that outlasts even the current administration. Future leaders—regardless of party—could exploit the same legal immunities, turning a temporary power grab into a permanent erosion of checks and balances. The judiciary would be left toothless. Congress would be neutered. And the president—any president—would stand above the law.

In hindsight, the late Senator John McCain already knew that he was dying of cancer, and his courageous vote against the grain would not and could not be primaried or fatally end his political career. But courage may not be uppermind for the four senators, who’s careers will certainly be challenged by a supercharged, vindictive, manchild should they fail to bend to his unyielding narcissistic will.

It’s a sobering reality that has led some to declare, “May we rest in peace,” as if mourning the democracy we once knew.

But perhaps it’s not time to mourn—yet. Perhaps it’s time to rise. There yet remains a vote in the senate, and there yet remains time to appeal to their better angels. History will remember this moment, and the question will be asked: Did we fight, or did we surrender?

Four senators. One vote. And the soul of a nation hanging in the balance. Understand this. If we lose, this moment, we all ultimately lose together, as perhaps only one soul, on earth – and certainly in these United States, will emerge to maintain free will and his will be done.

Play Ball.

The Art Of The Dealio

THE ART OF THE DEALIO.

The great negotiator is no match for big balls. During yesterday’s marathon, 2 hour call, Daniel Tramp laid out his cards, and his vision of peace. It turns out that Pootie Tang had his own vision of the way things ought to be.

So Mr. Tramp went home to post boastfully on Twist Social, about the “very good call…” , while Pootie went home and dropped some explosive ordinances on what is left of Ukraine’s protected infrastructure sites.

Go Team.

As The Wind Blows

Donald Trump has once again injected himself—and of course, his politics—into our Sunday afternoon quiet time, the Super Bowl. The mouth that roars ensures that the biggest game of the year is overshadowed by controversy, and allows him to once again live rent free in our heads, as he did in the 2016 Kapernick season. His recent comments about Patrick Mahomes, in which he wrongly credited Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville with coaching Mahomes at Texas Tech, are just the latest in a string of political distractions leading up to Sunday’s game. And now, with Trump expected to attend the Super Bowl, Mahomes will be carrying this noise into the game, whether he wants to or not. Trump lied, sending Tuberville into a state of political suicide, if he sets the record straight. Every sporsfan with a modicum of critical sports theory, knows that Tuberville never ever breathed a breath of coaching to Mahomes, from his job, way over in Cincinnati. At best scouts may have pointed Patrick out to him as he exited the Tech campus and the kid was still in high school. Mahomes was actually recruited by Texas Tech after Tuberville was good and gone. The kid flatly denied the senator’s quiet claim that he was recruited by him.

The quarterback’s focus should be on preparing for the biggest game of the season, not on correcting misinformation or dealing with unnecessary political distractions. But Trump’s insistence on making the Super Bowl part of his ongoing political spectacle only amplifies the pressure on Mahomes and the Chiefs.

If Mahomes loses on Sunday, we’ll never know how much this circus played a role. Did the added media frenzy affect his preparation? Was the distraction too much for the Chiefs to handle? While football is supposed to be an escape from politics, Trump’s involvement ensures that it won’t be that simple. Instead of enjoying a Sunday afternoon watching the game, fans will be subjected to the latest round of political grandstanding, making it impossible to separate sports from the noise surrounding it.

Every president finds himself chiming in on pop culture from time to time, But trump feels it to be his appointed duty to pass judgement on every passing fancy that blows his way, even as innocently as the wind blowing across the dust in the superbowl.