politics

It’s official. As my colleague David Dayen and I both predicted, enough Democratic senators have voted for a crypto “regulation” bill (called the GENIUS Act), basically written by the industry and Donald Trump’s minions, that it passed easily on Monday. If anything, it was even worse than I expected—just nine Democrats were needed to get to the necessary 60 votes, but 16 voted for it. (Two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jerry Moran of Kansas, voted against it.)

This vote was technically for cloture, meaning the bill couldn’t be halted by a filibuster, but it’s the only vote that mattered. The official vote, now scheduled for Thursday, is only a formality, and I expect several of these senators to vote against it so they can pretend they aren’t monumentally corrupt.

The Crypto Sixteen are the following: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who co-sponsored the bill, Adam Schiff (D-CA), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), John Fetterman (D-PA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE). Every one of them ought to be primaried in their next election.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who has more experience in financial regulation than anyone in Congress, outlined the problems in a speech on the Senate floor. First, the bill gives a clear green light to Trump’s world-historical corruption. “Passing this bill means that we can expect more anonymous buyers, big companies, and foreign governments to use the president’s stablecoin as both a shadowy bank account shielded from government oversight and as a way to pay off the president personally. For crooks, it’s a two-for-one,” she said.

... the Big Ugly Bill is enacted with the following provision, now hidden in the bill:

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….”

Translated: No federal court may enforce a contempt citation.

It can in theory be stopped if Senators vote against it. Making that happen means having Senators fear that constituents will vote them out and seek their prosecution. If you live in the US, calling your senators a call and letting them know how mad you are at the Republican agenda might just help a little.

The measure would limit courts’ ability to enforce contempt findings, a move that could blunt one of the judiciary’s most powerful tools for ensuring compliance with its rulings.

Would love another source, but this was all I could find.

As if there weren't enough bad things in this budget Bill

In particular, they're ignoring the Senate rules requiring a supermajority vote, and planning to claim they've taken away California's ability to regulate tailpipe pollution with a mere majority.

If you're an American, it's worth calling your senators and asking them to vote to preserve California's ability to impose stricter pollution controls — much of the country has historically adopted California's rules.

The House narrowly passed Trump's domestic policy bill Thursday following a dramatic all-night session and days of negotiations.

In a 215 to 214 vote, all but two House Republicans supported the massive budget package — the centerpiece legislation of Mr. Trump's second-term agenda — in a vote that came hours after unveiling an updated version of the legislation that GOP leaders hoped would satisfy enough holdouts.

The measure cleared a critical procedural hurdle in the wee hours of the morning, teeing up the vote on final passage after days of consternation among the House Republican conference.

The bill will now go to the Senate, where some Republicans have already voiced some opposition. Congressional leaders have said they want to get it to Mr. Trump's desk by July 4.

In total, the 220 winners of the contest to attend the dinner spent $394 million on Trump’s official cryptocurrency.

More than 200 wealthy, mostly anonymous crypto buyers are coming to Washington on Thursday to have dinner with Donald Trump. The price of admission: $55,000 to $37.7 million.

That’s how much the 220 winners of a contest to meet Trump spent on his volatile cryptocurrency token, $TRUMP, according to an analysis by the blockchain analytics company Nansen.

The top $TRUMP coin holders at a specific time — determined by the dinner’s organizers — secured a seat.

I like the part about no new spending is needed. Should we translate that to we will divert people looking into measles and covid to this?

Good thing hosts of The View doesn't have to worry about dick energy.

And they publish books about Biden's mental decline?

Stalin would be applauding

Elon Musk’s shouting match with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent might have been the final nail in the coffin for the tech billionaire’s four-month stint in the White House, but it came after months of bubbling frustration at Musk’s “chain-saw” approach to dismantling the federal government.

Musk and Bessent exploded at each other in April when Musk attempted to force through his pick to lead the IRS—Gary Shapley—behind Bessent’s back. (Musk eventually lost this battle—Shapley lasted less than 72 hours before Bessent tapped Michael Faulkender to replace him.)

“Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you!” a typically mild-mannered Bessent was heard shouting after Musk as they charged down the halls of the West Wing.

The chief justice had spoken out against MAGA’s attacks on the judiciary.

JD Vance ripped into Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for saying the courts are an equal branch of government whose job is to “check the excesses” of the executive branch.

Earlier this month, Roberts responded to calls from MAGA to impeach judges who ruled against Donald Trump’s policies by saying, “In our Constitution, the judiciary is a coequal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law, and strike down acts of Congress or acts of the president.”

“That innovation doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent,” he continued during a fireside chat in Buffalo, New York. “Its job is to, obviously, decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence.”