On today’s BradCast: A spotlight on Trump’s latest scheme to make election crimes — specifically his own, but Elon’s too — unaccountable again. [Audio link to full show follows this summary.]
Last Friday, the Chair of the Federal Election Commission, Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, posted a letter she received from the White House informing her that she had been fired. It was the first time in the FEC’s 50 year history that any Commissioner had been fired by a President. It is, also illegal. Weintraub, appointed by George W. Bush in 2007, is challenging the unlawful firing. She has, in the meantime, been locked out of her office, her email, her work computer and banned from the FEC building where she has worked without incident or scandal for 18 years. There is a legal way to replace Commissioners. This is not it.
Today we are joined by former FEC Chair ANN RAVEL, appointed by Barack Obama, she served on the Commission with Weintraub from 2014 through 2017. She also served as Deputy Asst. Attorney General at DoJ and is a professor at UC-Berkley School of Law.
Over the weekend, Ravel told me via email that she thought Trump’s attempt to fire Weintraub was “insane” and saw it as one more indication that the President has “no moral compass”. Today, she offers more details on just how outrageous and unprecedented this effort is. We also discuss why Trump would want to make sure there was no Democrat in charge of the FEC, which had a 3 to 2 imbalance in favor of Republican members before Weintraub was theoretically removed last week.
“There were approximately 20, maybe more, complaints that had been filed against Trump at the FEC,” Ravel explains today. “There were dozens of complaints related to the 2024 elections — not only against Trump and Musk, who spent nearly $300 million dollars to help the President get elected — but also complaints that Trump had filed himself against Kamala Harris, media outlets and the like. And that is undoubtedly the reason why Trump wanted to eliminate the chair.”
“The FEC is not a biased commission,” Ravel argues. “It is balanced in terms of party, and there’s always been adherence to the law at the FEC, given that it was established during the Watergate scandal. That’s the reason for the bipartisan structure.”
The Commission’s usual 3 to 3 partisan make-up has, in recent years, resulted in tie votes where no action is taken by the FEC. She tells me today that there were no instances, during her tenure, of a Republican Commissioner crossing party lines to vote with Democratic appointees, though the reverse was not unusual. Despite all of that, Ravel says she still believes in the institution even if it could benefit from reforms — though not like this.
“I feel really strongly about the disclosure that is required by the law at the Federal Election Commission, because it’s very important for the American public, when they are voting, or just generally, to know who is behind the campaigns. Who is spending billions of dollars in trying to influence certain things,” she tells me. “I really do think that he was trying to subvert the FEC at a critical moment, because of all of the campaign finance violations relating to Trump and his supporters.”
Tune in today for much more from Ravel!
Also today, after my discussion last week with financial journalist David Dayen about the Administration’s efforts to kneecap the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, things got much worse for the embattled federal agency over the weekend. The CFPB was created in 2008 in response to the sub-prime mortgage scandal that crashed the economy. As the only federal agency whose prime mission is working on behalf of consumers, the Bureau has held Big Banks and sleazy Payday Lenders to account over its short life, returning tens of billions of dollars to ripped off customers in the bargain. So, of course, Republicans have been trying to shut it down since its inception.
Over the weekend, its new Acting Director, Russell Vought — Trump’s newly-sworn in Director of the White House Office of Management Budget (OMB) and a key architect of Project 2025 — ordered “all” activity by the Bureau to cease, including “all supervision and examination activity.” He has also killed the CFPB’s web page (which now reads “File Not Found”), and ordered their D.C. headquarters closed as of today. Only an act of Congress can lawfully shut down the CFPB, but the lawless Trump Administration is trying to do so anyway.
In response, the union which represents some 1,600 workers at the CFPB filed two lawsuits on Sunday night. But will Trump follow the orders of any court that issues rulings he doesn’t like? A post to Twitter/X by Vice President J.D. Vance on Sunday night suggested he might not. A federal District Court judge in Rhode Island on Monday found that the Administration has already failed to comply with “the plain text” of his previous “clear and unambiguous” order to release billions of dollars in federal grants and other funding that the OMB had attempted to freeze two weeks ago.
I hope ya’ll are ready for a very real, very serious Constitutional crisis in the days ahead, when the Administration simply decides to stop following the orders of any court. Because it sure is starting to feel like that is exactly where this nightmare is ultimately going…
CORRECTION, 10:05pm PT: On the show posted above, my guest Ann Ravel mentioned that she had heard FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub had been removed from her office by U.S. Marines, by force, after her unlawful firing by Trump. In fact, though Weintraub is challenging the removal, that story of her being physically removed from her office, appears to be entirely fake, circulated by Rightwingers who also claimed, in this false telling, that Trump had discovered Weintraub had committed massive election fraud in 2020 and 2024. Ann told me she hadn’t seen that part of the false claim, but apologized a few hours after airtime via email for being “sucked into” the disinfo regarding the Marines removing Weintraub from the building. In fact, she touched base with Weintraub directly to confirm that that that part of the story was completely false. My apologies for the error!
‘Insane’… – Brad
Indeed.
Why is the term “psychopathy” not included in the newer “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,(DSM-5)?
In part it is because some view psychopathy as too stigmatizing a label. Others worry that clinicians could not be expected to accurately assess traits like callousness. But psychopathy is a term widely used by scientists.
But what about those who govern us (When You Are Governed By Psychopaths – 9)?