Clay Beard

@MacFarlaneNews I’m confused. Comey handed Trump the election in 2016. Trump should be giving him the Medal of Freedom.

NEW: James Comey says, “I’m still not afraid…” and “This isn’t who we are as a country” Tonight’s “Scott MacFarlane Reports” is LIVE with my latest reporting youtu.be/N21CFSCkZkc?si…

@gtconway3d You’re right. It’s hard.

We are going to see an accelerating tide of these admissions and conversions as the coming weeks and months pass. And the job of those of us who have opposed Trump for years is to resist saying "I told you so," or "you knew better," or "who needs you," but rather to say "thank you for seeing the light," and to ask people who previously supported Trump to help us stand up now for the impeachment and removal of that terrible man so that we rid ourselves of him sooner, rather than later. The survival of our nation as a constitutional republic depends in no small part on such grace.

@newrepublic @gtconway3d I wish she could find the strength to come forward and end our long national nightmare.

New Details on 13-Year-Old Trump Accuser Revealed in Massive Report trib.al/i3QqlyZ

@politico You obviously aren’t familiar with TX politics. Cornyn lost his only chance at victory. Hunt will endorse Paxton. Hell, Trump may even endorse Paxton. Runoff will be low turnout and MAGA dominated. Paxton will win it easily.

John Cornyn did so well in the Texas GOP primary that Trump could finally endorse him. Even in the most heavily Republican counties where Ken Paxton might have expected to benefit from a MAGA base, Cornyn largely held his own. politico.com/news/2026/03/0…

@warnerta @HeathMayo It’s a close race tonight. Paxton will indeed wins Hunt’s endorsement and maybe Trump’s. He will win Hunt’s votes and runoff will be low turnout and MAGA dominated. Paxton will win it.

@HeathMayo Unless Paxton is expected to win the great majority of Hunt's votes, Cornyn so far seems favored in the run-off. But the D turnout advantage is impressive.

The GOP kicked out Dan Crenshaw tonight. And it is well on its way to kicking out John Cornyn in favor of a serial philanderer and fraudster who even Cornyn himself will tell you has zero integrity and is unfit for office. To the few still clinging to the belief that the GOP will “come back” someday: How many times does the GOP have to show you this is who it is before you finally believe them? The battle to be waged against this version of the GOP is in the *general* election—not the primary. Help us defeat it, starting in Texas.

@MaMoMVPY Yeah, they did the right thing this time, but let’s not get too excited. All the folks you list have enabled us to get into the mess we are in today. For example, the immunity decision, voting to confirm clowns in the cabinet, voting against impeachment for 1/6, etc., etc., etc…

IT IS NOT THE LEFT THAT IS SAVING THE US FROM TRUMP. IT IS ROBERTS, GORSUCH, BARRETT, MASSIE AND BACON. The people currently saving the United States from Trump's authoritarian impulses are not who most people imagine. They are not progressive activists, Democratic senators or left-wing law professors. They are principled originalist judges, Reaganite conservatives and libertarian members of Congress. And that is crucial to understanding the actual state of American institutional resilience. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in "Learning Resources v. Trump" is the most striking illustration. THE SUPREME COURT: ROBERTS, GORSUCH AND BARRETT AGAINST TRUMP By 6-3 the Court struck down the bulk of Trump's tariff regime and held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act simply does not authorise the president to impose tariffs. The US Constitution gives that power to Congress, and Congress has never clearly delegated it. It is as simple as that. The three "liberal" justices would always have voted against Trump in this case. That was predictable, and quite frankly that is precisely why it carries little political weight. Trump dismisses them as partisan opponents, and he is not entirely wrong that their votes were foreseeable. What makes the ruling devastating for the administration is that Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and it is a masterclass in judicial restraint directed against presidential overreach. Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee and the embodiment of established conservative legal philosophy, laid out the case with complete clarity: the president claims "the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope," but he "points to no statute" in which Congress has ever said that IEEPA authorises tariffs. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. If the president wishes to exercise that power, he must point to "clear congressional authorisation. He cannot." Roberts was joined by Gorsuch and Barrett, both Trump appointees, making this a conservative majority ruling against a Republican president on conservative legal grounds. Gorsuch wrote a separate 46-page concurring opinion, twice as long as the majority opinion itself, in which he effectively told his three dissenting colleagues Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh that they were being intellectually dishonest. The "major questions" doctrine, which requires the president to point to clear congressional authorisation before exercising extraordinary powers, was precisely the principle conservatives used to strike down Biden's student loan forgiveness programme. You cannot apply it selectively. You cannot invoke it when it suits your political preferences and abandon it when it does not. That is not originalism. It is party politics dressed up as legal principle. Barrett made the same point even more sharply: you do not even need the major questions doctrine here. Ordinary statutory interpretation is sufficient. IEEPA lists a long catalogue of presidential powers: to regulate, block, nullify, void, prevent. But the word "tariff" is conspicuously absent. If Congress had intended to hand over this extraordinary power, it would have said so. It always has in every other tariff statute. Trump's reaction says it all. He called Gorsuch and Barrett "a disgrace to our nation" and "an embarrassment to their families." Consider what that means: a sitting president publicly attacking the judges he himself appointed, precisely because they are applying the legal principles they were appointed to uphold. It is the hallmark of someone who views the judiciary as an extension of personal loyalty rather than an independent branch of government. CONGRESS: MASSIE, PAUL AND BACON Meanwhile the real resistance to Trump's overreach in Congress has followed the same pattern. Thomas Massie, a libertarian Republican from Kentucky, has been the driving force behind the release of the Epstein files, directly against his own party leadership and the Trump administration's wishes. For those who know Massie this is not surprising. He has always been a principled constitutionalist. But for the broader public and for the party leadership he has become a thorn in the side precisely because he refuses to bend. Massie co-authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, gathered 218 signatures through a procedural motion to force a vote in the House of Representatives, and has relentlessly pressured the Department of Justice as it dragged its feet on the release in open defiance of the law. After reviewing unredacted files at the Department of Justice in February, Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna publicly accused the department of protecting powerful men through excessive redactions. In return, Massie is now the target of a super PAC funded by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer with at least $2 million earmarked to unseat him. His own side is punishing him for insisting on transparency. Another libertarian Republican, Rand Paul has stood with Massie on the Epstein case, toured with him in Kentucky to build public support, and has been one of the very few Republican senators willing to oppose Trump's fiscal agenda on principle. Paul voted against the "Big Beautiful Bill" because of its $5 trillion debt ceiling increase, and has consistently argued that DOGE's savings, however laudable in intention, must go through Congress to be constitutionally valid. It is a straightforward libertarian-constitutionalist position: the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold funds that Congress has appropriated. The courts have agreed. And then there is Don Bacon, a retired Air Force brigadier general, self-described Reagan Republican and one of the vanishingly few Republican members of the House who has publicly stood up to Trump on multiple fronts. Bacon called the administration's threats of sedition charges against Democratic members of Congress "amateur hour" and "crazy". He co-sponsored a constitutional amendment that would give Congress oversight of presidential pardons, directly aimed at Trump's blanket pardon of the January 6th rioters. He called Trump's peace proposal for Ukraine the "Witkoff Ukrainian surrender plan" and reportedly considered resigning from Congress in protest. He is not standing for re-election in 2026, which arguably frees him to speak honestly, but it also underscores the structural problem: principled Republican resistance is most possible when one has already decided to leave the stage. WHY THE RESISTANCE COMES FROM THE "RIGHT" The pattern is clear, and it tells us something important. The effective institutional checks on Trump's overreach overwhelmingly come from the "right": from originalist judges who apply their own stated principles consistently, from libertarian members of Congress who insist on constitutional procedure, and from Reaganite conservatives who believe in the separation of powers regardless of which party occupies the White House. This should not be surprising if one thinks about it from a market perspective. The most credible constraints on any institution come from actors who share the same framework but insist on consistent application of the rules. A Federalist Society judge ruling against a Republican president on separation of powers grounds carries far greater institutional weight than an ACLU lawsuit. A Republican member of Congress forcing through transparency on the Epstein files is far harder to dismiss than a Democratic member doing the same. THE LEFT'S PROBLEM IS SUBSTANTIVE The left's problem runs deeper than poor strategy. It is substantive. The American left has for decades flirted with precisely the same tendencies that Trump now represents: Massive state intervention in the economy, protectionism and an instrumental approach to the constitution. It is no secret that Bernie Sanders and large parts of the Democratic Party have considerable sympathy for tariffs and trade restrictions. Sanders voted against free trade agreements long before Trump made it Republican policy. And the left has traditionally never been unconditional constitutionalists. The constitution has for them always been something to be interpreted flexibly, adapted to the times, expanded when it serves progressive purposes and circumvented when it does not. This is where the decisive point lies, and it is fundamentally a libertarian insight: totalitarianism is by its nature statist. Without a large and interventionist state, there is no possibility for corruption and abuse of power on the scale we are talking about. Trump's tariff regime was only possible because Congress over decades delegated enormous powers to the executive branch, often with the left's enthusiastic support when it served their own purposes. If one wishes to avoid totalitarianism, one must set limits on the state. Hard, constitutional, non-negotiable limits. And that is precisely what the US Constitution does, when it is enforced by people who actually mean it. That is why people like Gorsuch and Massie are so crucial. They understand that limiting power is not a political preference but a structural principle. Gorsuch insists that Congress cannot delegate unlimited powers to the president without clear statutory authority, regardless of whether the president is called Obama, Biden or Trump. Massie insists that the executive branch cannot withhold appropriated funds or conceal documents from the public. They apply the same principles to everyone. That is what makes them constitutionalists rather than party soldiers. And that is what makes the left's position so intellectually untenable: you cannot spend decades expanding the power and authority of the state and then be horrified when an authoritarian president uses precisely the power you helped build. The real heroes of this chapter of American democracy are people like Roberts, Gorsuch, Barrett, Massie, Bacon and to some extent Rand Paul, not because they are perfect, and not because they agree on everything, but because they apply principles consistently even when it costs them politically. That is what institutional resilience actually looks like in practice. And it is worth noting, because the prevailing view has it almost entirely backwards.

@James_West_PhD He’s not a genius. At all. Any student who has completed the first year of law school knows exactly what he wrote is simply fundamental Constitutional law.

Gorsuch is a G*d-d*mned genius: "For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is."

@AdamKinzinger I’ll never understand how they think selling their soul is worth it.

Sad to see. And they’ll never take him back

@AdamKinzinger Kyle Rittenhouse.

“Why would you bring a gun to….” Is irrelevant under the second amendment

@RonFilipkowski Kyle Rittenhouse brought a gun, used it, and y’all call him a hero.

The Trump Administration hates the Second Amendment.

@davidfrum There are many, many things that prominent folks like Obama and Bush could do that, inexplicably, they don’t. Plus many others from both parties past and present. When will they finally wake up and fight this madness?

Presidents Bush and Obama should make a joint visit to military cemeteries in the UK, Canada, France, Poland, Denmark, etc to say "the America you remember remembers your friendship and sacrifice."

@OfTheBraveUSA @DCotter1 Shuckin’ and jivin’……..

ICE Associate Director Marcos Charles says that any individual that ICE agents encounter in, around, or in-route to a "target" is fair game for an interrogation, leaving the interviewer stunned.

@BethMooreLPM Nope.

I don’t know what to make of prolific people on social media who appear to never have mixed feelings. Who take a certain side, defend a certain position down the line no matter what has occurred. I mean, nothing ever happens to make a person cry foul on their own team? Nothing?? Is there no point when our side has gone too far? I can’t comprehend it. Seems to me that is putting way too much confidence in humans. Nobody’s always right. The thing about straight lines drawn by human hands is how prone they are to get crooked.

@gtconway3d Saw it a few weeks ago and thought same thing. (I’m an attorney too and normally hate lawyer ads.)

ngl I kinda like this ad 🤣

@itsrosesm Lena and Georgia.

@SenAdamSchiff Why is this just now becoming a “thing”? Mercy.

Donald Trump believes he can make his own truth through the repetition of lies. But from his gaslighting on January 6th, to his claims that affordability is a 'Democratic hoax,’ the reality is becoming clear for all to see: He doesn’t care about the struggles of ordinary Americans. He cares only about himself.

@RonFilipkowski I marvel at how so many will trade everything that should mean the most (character, honor, dignity) for money and/or power. Had no idea so many were willing to do it when given the chance. Trump gave them the chance.

Is there an amount of wealth you can acquire that helps you sleep better at night when, as a specially appointed official representing the US, you side with and embrace a murderous dictator like Putin? Does material wealth make Witkoff feel good about that? How much does it take?

@madrid_mike @gtconway3d I will never understand how any minority willingly voted for a narcissistic bigot.

In two decades of conducting this major poll of Latinos, Pew notes that it has never seen Latinos say their situation is worse than the year before. Pew poll shows Latino support for Trump is slipping npr.org/2025/11/24/nx-…

@RonFilipkowski Meh. McConnell is the reason we have JD Vance.

McConnell responds to JD Vance.

@gtconway3d I’m surprised there’s an FDR portrait still hanging in the WH.